Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!talon.UCS.ORST.EDU!usenet!ogicse!intelhf!ichips!iwarp.intel.com!gargoyle!learn
From: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William  Vajk )
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and CPSR don't have the same purpose.
Keywords: EFF college academia chapters
Message-ID: <1403@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>
Date: 27 Mar 91 13:34:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.1403
References: <7846@hsv3.UUCP> <1396@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <7858@hsv3.UUCP>
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Lines: 58

In article <7858@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

>>Beyond that, I am also interested in hearing what the "trendy causes"
>>might include which, by implication in the included text, have little to 
>>no permanent significance to our societal framework.           ^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>For starters: Unilateral disarmament.  Anti-strategic-defense.  Socialism.
>None of this has anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open.

Interesting that you're willing to narrow your activism. But I believe you've
missed an important point. Has to do with curing the disease but the patient
died anyway. Regardless of the particular direction on the causes, they are
your causes too.

>But the subset of us who don't want the Electronic Frontier
>closed off with a bunch of stupid, wrongheaded, misguided laws written
>by technoilliterates in Congress and various state legislatures does
>not by any means have a 100% overlap with those who have axes of the
>Trendy Campus Left type to grind.  I might join an EFF chapter.  I
>would not join a CPSR chapter.

Appears to me there are two separate concepts at play here. The first is 
that the stupid, wrongheaded, misguided laws we see written are ususally
prepared to some great extent by special interests at the behest of 
the technoilliterates who, in the past, have had no where else to turn
for assistance.

The second issue has to do with the "what else." I suggest that in this
life you'll rarely, if ever, come up with a 100% match to your desires. So
it would seem that unless one is totally opposed to the "what else" in an
organization, one joins anyway, for the parts that do mesh with your agenda.
If nothing else, your presence does a lot to dilute whatever "what else"
aspects you oppose. There's a potential for a double benefit at work here.
There's a chance that exposure will somewhat modify your views, and your
presence will modify theirs. Happens all the time.

>Which is the only aspect of this debate that really belongs in this
>group.  Debates on the merits of disarmament, strategic defense, and
>socialism should go to the appropriate talk.politics groups; this is
>not the place for them.

Agreed. And I think you'll discover that all organizations at some
point exceed (officially) their original reason d'etre. Usually this is
because the membership is made up of "entire" human beings whose interests
tend to go beyond the narrow perspectives of the organizational charter.
And when one similarly minded group or another achieves a majority on the
governing board, additional issues spill into the activists cup.

Once more, it is important that in order to achieve the representation for
your views, you don't shy away from organizations whose agenda is a partial
mesh. The don't be shy about working within the framework of the organization
to make your voice count. Your presence will attract like minded creatures.

Please note that I haven't espoused any particular set of views on the
subjects at hand. But I do think it important to work, as much as possible,
with organizations that are already there.

Bill Vajk