From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Sat Nov 11 2006 - 15:28:07 EST
Regarding the note from Cyrus, nobody wants to wade into the middle of these exchanges. I thought there were some points that needed making when the flame war erupted in early September but hesitated and the moment passed so I let it go. Perhaps this is a time to raise a couple of points related to the general problem. 1. It goes without saying that those who participate in the parry and thrust of personal abuse can have no idea how it dampens the enthusiasm for collegial exchange. It cannot help but stifle; folks lose interest. My guess is that once personal abuse begins, whatever the justification, pretty much everybody loses interest not only in the particular exchange, but in exchange on any topic. 2. I support Jerry's role as coordinator of the list. I think he has devoted enormous energy to the task and has developed and sustained a difficult and important job over a long period of time. But he issued a warning not long ago. I got the impression from the post that he had authority as list administrator to exclude someone from the list. I don't know whether this is the case or not, but if it is, in my opinion it shouldn't be. I don't think any such decisioin should be taken by an individual. We have an administrative committee. Moreover, willingly or not, Jerry has sometimes found himself in the middle of such exchanges. In anything approximating such an instance, it would be wise for him to recuse himself. 3. At the moment, as far as I understand, the only mechanisms we have for situations where list members engage in personal abuse are punitive. As the economists say, this is inefficient. It's too draconian to be imposed and is difficult to impose fairly. We should consider whether alternatives aren't available to us. Silly things are said on the list. There are unhelpful refusals to listen, unnecessary disagreements, folks talking past one another, etc. -- all the errors of ordinary communication. There are also, and should be, sharp disagreements. A little roughness of the skin from exposure is in order. Still, words can harm. Where they do, the tradition of criticism self-criticism may contribute to sorting things out. In fact it may well be that the eruption that gets expressed in abuse reflects an accumulation of irritations only poorly expressed in the actual attack. A thoughtful culture of criticism self-criticism might allow such things to be fleshed out before they reach the point of abuse. In any event we should be reluctant to leave everything to ground rules enforced punitively only. Perhaps we could find a way to channel abuse first offlist, say by asking that any expression of perceived injury be expressed onlist only in a joint statement. For persistent problems phone mediation might even occasionally be helpful. People with expertise in conflict resolution are available at many universities or other public agencies, are often progressive, and might be sometimes be worth calling on. Anyway, we don't have to watch passively while a situation deteriorates. 4. OPE-L is an important list and could be much more important than it is. It's worth giving thought generally to list policies that constrain scholarly exchange. A glaring example is the policy that allows posts to be used but prohibits their attribution. I'm missing something on this -- I've never understood the rationale. The policy cannot help but limit the exchange of tentative thoughts and insights. Surely it must inhibit discussion of works in progress. It certainly inhibits citation to OPE-L. We have seen how it might contribute to a list member's feeling, rightly or wrongly, of having been the victim of wrongful use. Conceivably, since it blunts accountability, it may actually contribute to abuse. If this or any other policy makes no contribution to collegial discussion, it should be dropped. In any event it would be good to openly discuss such issues; the administrative committee ought to review them. Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Moseley" <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 11:48 AM Subject: [OPE-L] checking > Hi Jerry. were you able to send the referee report that I sent you to > David Laibman? Just checking to make sure. I haven't heard from > David. Sorry for the bother. > > Too bad the Cyrus letter got forwarded, but your apology should take > care of it. > > Thanks again, > Fred > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST