Newsgroups: ut.general
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!dgp.toronto.edu!elf
From: elf@dgp.toronto.edu (Eugene Fiume)
Subject: Re: Campus media policy
Message-ID: <8902092232.AA24520@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu>
Organization: University of Toronto, CSRI
References: <1989Feb7.022304.16298@utpsych.uucp> <8902090918.AA15907@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu> <8902091916.AA19180@dundas.csri.toronto.edu>
Distribution: ut
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 17:32:34 EST

In article <8902091916.AA19180@dundas.csri.toronto.edu> parsons@csri.toronto.edu ("Darrell J. Parsons") writes:
>
>I seem to miss Mr Fiume's point.  Kirsten Krismer used this group
>to announce (too late for me) an important meeting and give some
>background.  If he is misrepresenting the situation re Daryl
>McDowell it would be clearer if Mr Fiume would say so.  Otherwise,
>the issue of "tenure", "academic freedom", "freedom of speech",
>and the use of some or all of these to promote bogus racist theories
>seem to be linked to Kirsten Krismer's posting.  I, for one, can
>think of nothing more appropriate for this medium, particularly at
>this time.  If racist/bigoted views are being presented in media
>associated with this University then the University community should
>feel free and obliged to discuss it in any available medium.  I
>intend no disrespect of Mr Fiume and would welcome any correction
>related to my misunderstanding his views or the facts.

Please observe that I only quoted the bottom fragment of Ms. Krismer's
article.  I have no objection to posting meeting announcements and so
forth, but I do object to the posting of statements that can easily be
interpreted as being inflammatory.  Since I don't know anything about
this McDowell person, and I've never read the Underground, my
interpretation of the quoted passage is that I'm being told to shut
some guy up because of some alleged but unsubstantiated misconduct.  My
posting was an unsuccessful attempt to point out that just as Krismer
objects to the inflammatory writing of McDowell, a devil's advocate
could apply the same standard to Krismer's writing.  The problem is that
"inflammation" is in the eye of the beholder, and this should be taken
into account, particularly in an electronic newsgroup that reaches many
people who, like myself, are ignorant of the issue at hand.

I perfectly agree that that the Rushton and McDowell issue, and the
limits of "academic freedom" and "freedom of speech" and all that,
should be discussed.  But this is not the forum.  Real face-to-face
discussions and meetings and debates are the appropriate forum (as in
fact was reasonably suggested in the first part of Krismer's posting).
Discuss this through this forum and all you'll get is an unproductive
flame war, as anyone experienced with usenet knows.
-- 
Eugene Fiume
Dynamic Graphics Project
University of Toronto
elf@dgp.toronto.edu