KAIROS logo

Editorial Policy?
or Censorship?

An unedited electronic discussion-decision by the Kairos  staff


Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 11:28:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

Hi all --

Time for another high-level decision ... censorship issues is the topic of the day.

I'm reading through Nick's and Ted's e-mail exchange for the News section which is *excellent* -- but it is e-mail and thus somewhat less ... formal than we may be used to seeing in an academic journal. This is all fine with me until I see Ted use the phrase, if I recall it correctly, "fucking idiots."

Now, um, I'm not personally offended by the word. But there are two VERY DISTINCT ISSUES we HAVE TO address here.

*one, obviously, is the use of the profanity. technically, after all, writing that on the WWW is *illegal* and stepping over the line from writing it out of frustration on our postings or homepage to including it in Kairos is a BIG STEP.

*two, and I'm going to be very close to insisting here, but will listen to counter-arguments ... since we are publishing this kind of strong opinion in our *NEWS* section, and considering Corey's ideas in Utah, rightly so, I think we have to have a statement in the journal -- not on the homepage, but in each individual issue, maybe even in any individual website in question, that clearly states:
The opinions expressed in the various pieces of webtext published in Kairos, and included on nodes linked to and from the journal, are not necessarily those of the journal staff, editorial board, or the Alliance for Computers and Writing.
Is everyone agreeable to this? Too many times in my print-j days I saw people get in trouble for slipping opinion into news ... and we're doing it intentionally.

Corey? Anyone else?

Mick
(looking over his shoulder for NetCops)


Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 11:29:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: 'nother idea
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

should we include the editorial board in on the discussion about profanity/opinion statements?

just a thought.


Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 11:38:59 -0400
From: Jason Teague mailto:endless@nando.net
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

Keep the language.

Put the disclaimer.

'nuff said
-- 
--
--
--- Jason Conrad Teague


=================================
endless@nando.net
---------------------------------
An Autobiography of a Digital Man
http://www.rpi.edu/~teaguj
=================================

Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 10:45:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: Corey W Wick cwick@badlands.NoDak.edu
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

At this point, even though I'm not offended by the word either, my first impression is to edit it somehow. There are the legality concerns that Mick mentioned, plus our ACW "sponsorship" that we should probably consider. Considering Derrida's concept of trace, while it's technically not there, it's still there. I'd like to forward it to the review board to see thier ideas as well.

My first impression of the disclaimer satement, though, is negative. I don't like the idea of stating the obvious just to meet protocol. But again, I'm open to suggestions and think it would be a good issue to discuss with each other as well as the edboard.

Corey


Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 11:12:09 -0600 (CST)
From: ELIZABETH PASS ngpas@ttacs.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

i think the idea of the karois statment saying it's not necessarily our opinion is good. regarding the profanity--use it. partly b/c it's in the news section and seems more "conversational" than a coverweb or feature. partly b/c we're saying we want to give the authors as much control as possible.

i think there's gratuitous profanity that's not pertinant to the content, and i don't think that type should be in kairos.

others?
elizabeth



Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 11:12:46 -0600 (CST)
From: ELIZABETH PASS ngpas@ttacs.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: 'nother idea
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

include edboard in on profanity issue? no. this seems to be a staff decision.

but i may be wrong.

elizabeth



Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 11:25:51 -0600 (CST)
From: AMY HANSON ykfam@ttacs.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

I personally don't care at all for the phrase "fucking idiots," but I'm sure that doesn't surprise anyone. I think we have to consider our position--we are trying to be a bridge between print and electronic journals, and I don't think we should risk looking "less professional" (for lack of a better word this morning) by just printing everything as is because it's really cool otherwise.

The disclaimer is a good idea theoretically, but it only addresses the opinions. We still have made the conscious decision to put profanity (which, as Mick pointed out, is illegal on the web); thus, we're saying, we may not agree with the opinions, but we will put those opinions in our journal no matter what format they take. I don't think that's what we're trying to do here.

As for asking the EdBoard for opinions, I think we need to consider whether we have time to do that. I think that this could be a very heated discussion, and we don't really have time to listen to all sides of the issue. Eventually (an actually that's a very soon eventually), we have to just make a decision, so I think that for this particular piece, we should make the decision ourselves. Then we might consider discussing a long-term disclaimer, etc. with the board by beginning the discussion with the decision we made and why.

Amy



Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 12:16:21 -0600 (CST)
From: ELIZABETH PASS ngpas@ttacs.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: Editor's Node?
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

after reading amy's comments i can see the other side. if we are trying to be the bridge b/w academic and hypertext publishing, should we allow that? this is very sticky b/c we are trying to please both sides of the fense. this issue will force us to chose a side regarding this issue--be more traditional or be more open. hmmmmm.....and is being more open mean we accept that language?

eliz



Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 13:59:54 -0400
From: Jason Teague mailto:endless@nando.net
Subject: Re: Editor's Node?
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

ELIZABETH PASS wrote:
> hmmmmm.....and is being more
> open mean we accept that language?

YES it does. That is the way people "talk" on-line. That is a part of the discourse as much as any "academic" language. And, it is not illegal to say "fucking" online (yet.) The ruling on the (un)constitutionality of the Comm. Dec. act is not due out until either tomorrow or next week, and I believe it will be struck down. Until then, it is unenforcable.

By "editing" these words out WE ARE CENSORING the content of this article, and who will take us seriously then. I say, we either run the article AS IS or we do not run the article AT ALL.

You can guess which way I'll vote.
-- 
--
--
--- Jason Conrad Teague


=================================
endless@nando.net
---------------------------------
An Autobiography of a Digital Man
http://www.rpi.edu/~teaguj
=================================

Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 14:02:25 -0400
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

>i think there's gratuitous profanity that's not pertinant to the content,
>and i don't think that type should be in kairos.

wouldn't this include the phrase 'fucking idiots'? i have to admit, that reads as sort of gratuitous to me ....

i agree that we shouldn't ad -- opps, "omit" -- profanity across the board, but i'd like to see a better reason than extreme emphasis.

ya think?


Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 14:35:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: reply to Amy's comments
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

Amy, I agree pretty much across the board with what you wrote. I would *like* to include the edboard, but we don't have time to do so at this point.

I'd like to suggest, *for the time being*, that we include the disclaimer and in (in)appropriate places we use tags like "[expletive deleted] idiot"

Jason, I know you hate that idea. I can smell your disdain for it halfway across the country! But there's a fine line between establishing what "cutting edge" is and riding an ethos we don't really have yet into the ground.

Might we do the above for this issue and then open the discussion to our editorial board after publication? We can always go back and change it ...

webbed writing t'aint immutable, 'course!

mick


Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 13:24:54 -0600 (CST)
From: ELIZABETH PASS ngpas@ttacs.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

yes, mick. but i wasn't planning on using that post in a journal. i certainly never would refer to someone by that term in a journal. part of a private list and email (as jason says) is the informality. in person, i would've said that term. in a pen and paper letter i wouldn't. and for publication....certainly not.

again, jason brings up interesting points. i think we're serving dual purpose and undoubtedly issues like this and others will strain that balance.

eliz


Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 16:34:39 -0400
From: Jason Teague mailto:endless@nando.net
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

ELIZABETH PASS wrote:
> > i certainly never would refer to someone by that term in a journal. part of
> a private list and email (as jason says) is the informality. in person, i
> would've said that term. in a pen and paper letter i wouldn't. and for
> publication....certainly not.
>

BUT this is a journal about communication. If that is the way in which these people communicated, who are we to arbitrarilly cover that up.

If this were an Anthropological journal, would we routinly delete or cover up descriptions of mating habits?

The word "fucking" is a part of the vocabulary of the people we are intersted in, and thus a relevent part of the article in question. It is a part of "writing in webbed environments," whether we like it or not.
-- 
--
--
--- Jason Conrad Teague


=================================
endless@nando.net
---------------------------------
An Autobiography of a Digital Man
http://www.rpi.edu/~teaguj
=================================

Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 00:19:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael J. Salvo" salvo@binghamton.edu
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

1) we publish the fucking review, with the son-of-a-bitch curse words in the shitty text if the authors don't fucking mind associating their name with the shit.

2) on a more serious note, we should NEVER, EVER censor based on what we might *fear* some thought-cop *might* not like. fuck 'em.

i really believe that if, in context, the use of profanity is appropriate to the piece, it should go. if nick and ted want to use the words to express the off-the-cuff roughness of their dialogue, let's go for it. i also think it would be timid and a transparent move to cover our collective asses with a disclaimer. screw the disclaimer. i'm ready to stand behind curse words if used in context.

mike


Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 00:30:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael J. Salvo" salvo@binghamton.edu
Subject: Re: reply to Amy's comments
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

if "[explative deleted]" appears in this journal, i will not be able to continue working with you all. it runs "fucking idiots" or not at all. i suggest we link "fucking idiots" that has our debate linked to it -->

those [A HREF="fucking.html"]fucking idiots[/A]

_____

The staff feels it important to indicate that we discussed the appearance of the phrase "fucking idiots" and while we question its effectiveness, to edit it would immediately undermine our credibility ... "


Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:19:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael J. Salvo" salvo@binghamton.edu
Subject: expletives
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

i didn't mean to say i'd resign or anything if you all decided to CENSOR this use of expletives, but i feel strongly that we should not, under any circumstances, bow to unjust and illegal censorship imposed by poorly written and untried law.

a censored journal is a useless journal.

mike


Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:19:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: *&^%$#@!
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

Hey, Mike -
that's a far-freaking-fine idea. :)
No, I'm serious ...
let's code our discussion about this and link it to that word. AND, I think (because this is a important issue worth forefronting a bit more, perhaps) .... even include it as a staff-web in "Logging On" linked below Mike's and Corey's contributions.

I will code it if everyone likes this idea. (I have all the messagess saved) I think including the swear word is in many respects unprofessional; I think I'm probably overreacting on one end and Mike and Jason (who are AGREEING, someone take a picture!) are perhaps overreacting on the opposite part of the spectrum.

But I *love* this idea. Showing our discussion. Letting the "code show through the text," as it were.

This is something we might consider doing fairly reg'ly, even.

Do I hear any objections?
(And this is off the top of my head, so I recognize that any one of us seven ought to be able to veto it outright.)

Mick
(who still wants an editorial release statement, Mike ...)


Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:34:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael J. Salvo" salvo@binghamton.edu
Subject: Re: *&^%$#@!
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

statement: mick is hearby released from responsibility, but mike wants to stand behind everything published. so sue the sicilian: we dare you.

how's that?

mike, losing sense of what's serious and what's not


Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:36:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: what?
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

MikeS writes:

>a censored journal is a useless journal.

This is a slogan. As slogans go, it's pretty nice. But like most slogans, it doesn't address the spectrum of the ideas involved.

Censorship = Bad. Okay, I buy that.

Editorial Decisions *can* = Censorship. But in most cases it is a matter of careful judgment and considered ideas.

Deciding not to include something because it's either unprofessional or illegal is *not* censorship. It is a carefully considered -- see our long discussion here -- editorial decision, and eventually (for all publications worth their salt) a stable, if changeable, policy.

If we decide to keep profanity in the journal because it can raise issues worth discussing, then I can support it, though I will be uncomfortable with it. If we decide to leave it in because "censorship is bad" then we don't have the same understanding of the meaning of the word censorship.

This is about professionalism and audience awareness first, and about legal issues second. It's not really *about* censorship. Point of fact: Ted doesn't need the work "fucking" to make his point. It may be off-the-cuff e-mail-style writing, but that doesn't mean it's automatically exempt from consideration and *editing.*

Talking about the issue is *useful* whether we censor the word or not. In fact, I want to include this extremely useful discussion as a link to the journal even if it's off the phrase [expletive deleted] -- and don't think having the link off the word or the replacement phrase changes the tenor of the discussion but superficially.

I'd also like to ask Nick and Ted to comment, if everyone is amenable to that??

Mick


Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:38:27 -0400 From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: Re: *&^%$#@!
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

>mike, losing sense of what's serious and what's not

All of it is serious. And all of it is re-diculous!
But there's a lot going on here ...
:listens for subtext

Oh, and you can't resign. Who would keep conservative old me in line?
;)


Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 02:09:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael J. Salvo" salvo@binghamton.edu
Subject: Re: *&^%$#@!
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

sub-text:

yes, my last message was a slogan. but i don't think we can ignore the fact that the "communications decency act" expressly forbids the seven words in the same simplistic, solopsistic, and patriarchal way george carlin so masterfully ridicules *broacast* media censorship. i wouldn't be surprised if ted's inclusion of expletives was a direct stab at the CDA. if we take it out, we accept the authority of this bogus law.

i, for one, have real trouble justifying the removal of certain words based on vague notions of "professionalism." as a working class scholar, i have been conditioned to wonder about such off-the-cuff remarks and the way i am *perceived* by my community -- and this community is tightly wound about issues of appearance and propriety. expletives are a marker of my speech. just as certain forms appear more often in different cultural dialects, academic speech prohibits the use of expletives.

when i utter unprofessional expletives or show my resistance through their use, my speech can be put aside (that is, marginalized) by the authorized discourse of academe. but the problem doesn't end there. a law now exists, a LAW for which, the law's authors claim, can get me in LEGAL trouble for writing "fuck" *anywhere* on-line. and i think such an assertion is untenable and dangerous.

it is the second instance, the question of LAW and LEGALITY, with which i am concerned. and i think that by leaving this a question of "professionalism" misses the mark and trivializes a set of problems and questions the instance we are discussing introduces. do i think we should blankly publish "bad" words? no. however, it is clear to me that we need to consider the reach of our decision. if we decline this instance, have we accepted CDA as law? i'm not ready or willing to accept CDA or to marginalize the very voices that KAIROS is designed to share.

ted's voice is rough and no-nonsense on our professional composition-related email lists. can we expect him to change for KAIROS? i certainly hope not. i hope we value his voice as much in the authorized "published" space of KAIROS as we do in ACW-L or MBU-L space or RhetNet. identity is wrapped up in our utterances. if we remove the expletive, KAIROS becomes a censorer. ted's voice becomes a meek voice of the academy (which it isn't in uncensored list discussion), and his voice gets stripped of its cultural markers.

i thought publishing in KAIROS was a means of sharing all kinds of marginalized voices. we are particularly concerned with the work of hypertext scholars and on-line scholarship. but shouldn't we consider how those voices are represented? it is imperative to publish the voices of the net *as they appear* on-line, warts and all. the question is how far do we take this ideal, this *slogan*, for online discourse. i, for one, am willing to take it as far as it will go -- and beyond if we need to test the limits of academic publishing.

mike


Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 13:45:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: Corey W Wick cwick@badlands.NoDak.edu
Subject: Re: *&^%$#@!
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

Like Mike and Jason (and perhaps most of us), I am adamantly opposed to censorship in any form, and it troubles me to be taking part of a decision of whether or not to exercise this injustice in our journal. I think it's important for me to make this principle clear.

But I see this issue as one of priority as much as principle. I've had friends and colleagues who stood up for their principles at all times, never backing down from a fight. While this is admirable, it seems that this approach also impeded their progress in achieving their top priorities. There are only 86,400 seconds in a day, which is not enough time to fight each and every battle we encounter, making it important to choose what, when, and where we'll fight.

I think battling censorship is important to us all, but I think a higher priority is to establish _Kairos_ and similar online publications as validated forms of scholarship, journals where published authors receive the credit toward promotion and tenure they so rightly deserve.

I agree that keeping "fucking hypocrites" takes a stand against censorship (a stand I support), but I think doing so threatens our progress toward a more immediate goal. While I, too, disagree with the interpretation of "professional" held by the academy's wielders of power, I think we need to consider that interpretation as we pursue the validation of _Kairos_ as a respected academic journal.

I don't think fighting both battles is the most effective rhetorical strategy at this time. I fear it would result in gaining a step toward one goal while losing a step toward another. We'll beat the thought police--we'll "whip 'em good" as my daddy used to say. But I think we should wait until the _Kairos_ is right, when we can deal with greater focus and greater force, when we have a better chance of moving forward than breaking even.

I say we keep the link to the discussion but insert "expletive" or some other euphemism, preferably something that leaves a trace of the original content. I am still vehemently opposed to the disclaimer, though. Either way, though, we need to decide soon. Maybe we can do a follow up in the news section (after all, everything is news ;-) in 1.3 or beyond.

Corey


Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 15:22:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael J. Salvo" salvo@binghamton.edu
Subject: fucking idiots Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

i see corey's point. however, any damage that could be done to K's ethos would be deflected by including the link to our discussion. i see no reason to replace [fucking] with [your favorite expletive here] or even [f*cking idiots].

mike (hey, people keep giving me money for my cruddy furniture! what a concept. i'm getting like a dime on the dollar, though ;-)


Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 14:48:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Corey W Wick cwick@badlands.NoDak.edu Subject: Re: fucking idiots
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Michael J. Salvo wrote:

> i see corey's point. however, any damage that could be done to K's ethos
> would be deflected by including the link to our discussion. i see no
> reason to replace [fucking] with [your favorite expletive here] or even
> [f*cking idiots].

Yes, I thought of this while I composed that post. I was going to develop a point distinguishing between a *published* news feature and a link to our discussion of the censorship issue (even though it may be a very fine line, or perhaps no line at all). I was thinking this would be a way to illustrate that I take professional protocol seriously regarding the "contents" of our journal while I express my views in a slighlty less "formal," more tangential discussion. Granted both really are "published," but I felt linking to our discussion was different than publishing a News Feature. Having voiced my position, I'm willing to concede leaving "fucking" the way it is, although I do think that a link on "f*cking idiots" is an equally effective way of calling attention to the censorship issue. Even though "fucking" is not there, we know what the euphamism refers to and therefore, "fucking" is still there. I think it makes a point about the futility/absurdity of blind censorship.

Anyway, I'll end again with prioritizing. I can live with the raw text or with some form of obvious euphamism. But I think it important that we decide quickly and move on to production. I've spent a lot of time on the censorship issue this morning, thus taking me away from more pressing duties.

I vote for "f*cking," but I won't appeal to Bob Dole or President Clinton if I'm outnumbered.

Off to grab some lunch.

: drools chicken nuggets


Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 17:18:56 -0600 (CST)
From: ELIZABETH PASS NGPAS@ttacs1.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: expletives
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

mick--i think we need to come to a consensus about where we stand on this issue, at least for the time being. it seems we're leaning toward leaving the expletive and linking the discussion to it. as it stands now:

leave in expletive w/ link--mike, mick, jason, elizabeth
leave in partial expletive w/ link--corey
leave out expletive (w/ link? w/o link?)--amy
greg?--don't recall where he stands

everyone, is this correct? has your opinion changed since the time you posted? does something need to be clarified? can we come to a consensus before this issue, or does mick need to make an editorial decision or we take a vote?

i just want to make sure that mick or anyone else doesn't write nick and ted saying what we're going to do w/o everyone feeling liked they've voiced their opinion and the issue (for the time being) is settled. mick also needs to knowa decision on the way this is going to go fairly quickly so he can write to them and/or we can prepare the discussion to the link if that's what we're going to do.

what kind of consensus can we come to? are we ready to make a decision?

elizabeth


Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 12:54:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: Expletives
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

Eliz,

thank you *very* much for collecting that info all into one place. I think it's pretty representative of what I was understanding, with the exception that my POV is not to leave the word in, but to leave a "version" in (as per Corey).

As you can see from an earlier post today, I did write Nick and Ted about a few other things, and mentioned that we were discussing the issue, and possibly putting our discussion online. I didn't want to surprise them with it on Sunday or Monday, and figured this way they would A) think about it and B) if we do nothing, it's no big deal but C) if we do they've had time to think about it!

So they know that the discussion is happening, but that no decision has been made.

If -- *IF* -- I had to make a temporary unilateral decision, it would be this:

*code the discussion and link it -- including the interesting post Nick just wrote and perhaps anything Ted might send later.

*include a disclaimer as per the one I mentioned two days ago (I really think we need to have this either way; will anyone picket the staff meetings if we include one?)

*using a phrase like "F*cking" which is more obvious than yet doesn't *quite* cross some of the lines tradition has drawn, and link that to our discussion.

*initiate a edboard discussion based on their reading of our coded text so we can have a policy (even if that policy is the decision to not have a policy) online for 1.3 ...

That's what *I* would do. That is not an "editorial decision" -- it's a suggestion. Perhaps even a motion. Amendments? Comments?

Mick D-


Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 13:49:14 -0400
From: Jason Teague mailto:endless@nando.net
Subject: Re: Expletives
Reply-to:kairosed@cfcc.net

M. Doherty wrote:

> *using a phrase like "F*cking" which is more obvious than > deleted> yet doesn't *quite* cross some of the lines tradition has drawn,
> and link that to our discussion.

Actually Mick the consensus seems to be to leave the word intact with the link to an explination. Are you making an exec. decision. If so, I thiink it's clear that I will disagree with this decision. My personal opinion is that using "F*cking" is a kinda' lame way out. It looks like we didn't have the nerve to go one way or the other.

-- 
--
--
--- Jason Conrad Teague


=================================
endless@nando.net
---------------------------------
An Autobiography of a Digital Man
http://www.rpi.edu/~teaguj
=================================

Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 14:02:38 -0400
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.ed
Subject: Re: expletives
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

Actually, Jason, I don't think there's been any kind of consensus. Elizabeth mildly misplaced me on her list, which looks like this:

*leave in expletive w/ link - elizabeth, jason, mike
*leave in partial expletive w/ link -- corey, mick
*leave out expletive - amy (no word yet on the link)
*no opinion offered/unavailable -- greg

and like i said, that was not an executive decision. i just wanted to explicitly state what my position was.


Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 08:35:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nick Carbone nickc@marlboro.edu
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

Mick Doherty wrote (to Nick Carbone and Ted Nellen):

> Finally -- here's the big one -- Nick and Ted, the K-staff has been
> having a dandy of a discussion on our list about Ted's choice of
> adjectives in his first full posting. We are considering actually
> publishing a coded portion of that commentary in our LoggingOn section,
> re: the use of language and expletives in professional space, and the
> fine line between editorial policy and censorship in these CDA-driven
>days.

> If we decide to do that, and when it is coded, it's linked directly to the
> prhase "fucking hypocrites" from your work, as well ... and perhaps you'd
> even be willing to add to the discussion after you take a gander.
>
> I like the piece. It's an exciting new way to think about "News" ...

Interesting...I didn't edit the e-mail messages, let them stand as they were except for minor things that just seemed unclear. Should we dress up frank prose? It struck me as pretty powerful in that Ted worked more closely with conference documents and in citing news and journal articles surrounding the issue. In that sense he was more scholarly. The 'fucking hypocrites' is the voice, I think, of an exasperated classroom high school teacher whose daily reality and academic conditions the conference ignored. There was a lot of hostility to teachers in the conferences proceedings; especially to teachers' unions, but the two terms are blurred.

In a way the term is a punch--a direct rhetorical blow at governors. It's a departure from academic discourse which likes to hide its violence; but given the nature of the exchange we had, and the fluidity of e-mail, which is what we want to in part capture, I think it's worth leaving and discussing.

Does it cheapen debate? Would it have happened in a traditional academic setting, say a round table discussion at a conference? Good questions and worth considering.


Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 00:22:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted Nellen tnellen@mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us
Subject: Re: Nick & Ted
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net

On Sat, 8 Jun 1996, Nick Carbone wrote:

> Does it cheapen debate? Would it have happened in a traditional academic
> setting, say a round table discussion at a conference? Good questions > and worth considering.

When I wrote that I wondered about it. I sent it, because it fit with the sentence before it and Nick said it best when he just explained it as a part of the frustration I experience in my job. I know it may offend many of your readers and it may detract from the rest of the dialogue. I will defer to your decision. Since I wrote it and obviously think it belongs, I would prefer that; however, I do understand the argument from the other side and will live with wither decision. No big thing. I just hope it doesn't detract from the rest of the dialogue. If you believe, Mick, knowing your readership better than I, that phrase will compromise the article then protest the integrity of the magazine and the article first. I like Nick's argument for its inclusion. It is crude, but then so the summit crude from my point of view. I would like to hear how the staff argued. It may shed light on the dilemma.

Cheers,                                            __o
                                                 _-\_
Ted    8-)                                      (_)/(_)

http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us 
http://www.dorsai.org/~tnellen 

Ted heard how the staff argued; now so have you. What do you think?





KAIROS Kairos: A Journal for Teachers of Writing in Webbed Environments.
Vol. 1 No. 2 Summer 1996