[5162] in Central_America
New quotes for Sat Nov 6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Central America)
Sat Nov 6 05:49:40 1993
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 05:48:57 -0500
From: Central America <root@charon.MIT.EDU>
To: ca-mtg@charon.MIT.EDU
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
carla (Carla `Likes the X400' Fermann):
Then it's me and my machine
For the rest of the morning
For the rest of the afternoon
And the rest of my life
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
hch (Hernando Cortina):
Let's send the Russians defective lifestyle accessories!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pepsi (Geoffrey R Gustafson):
BS, MS, First Million, Marriage, First Billion,
White Picket Fence, First Trillion, Kids,
Chairmanship of the Federal Reserve.
You know, same old thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rlcarr (Richard L. Carreiro):
So We Finally Know What Harassment Is?
by Adam Dershowitz
When my copy of the new guide, "Dealing with Harassment at MIT" arrived, I
thought that I might finally be able to understand what constitutes
harassment. I could not have been more wrong. This document only goes to
show what a clouded issue the administration has made harassment into, and
goes on to demonstrate their complete lack of understanding of the First
Amendment of the Constitution.
When a group of students chose to voice their opinions about the success of
the many hours of work and the 10's of thousands of dollar that must have
been invested in this document by burning it, did their action, "create an
intimidating, hostile or offensive educational, work or living environment"
If so it was therefore harassment! If I had put that much work into
something I would have been offended at having it burned, but then again, I
would never admit to writing anything as silly as this guide, and in this
case no one has put their name to this guide.
So what is harassment? After the definition, which includes anything that
is "intimidating", "hostile", "offensive", and therefore virtually all
speech that is charged, the guide says, "Finally, even though certain
offensive speech may be protected as free speech..." Ah Ha! So there is
some protected speech on campus, but what is it, how is it protected, and
why? The guide explains, "Freedom of expression is essential to the
mission of a university. So is freedom from unreasonable and disruptive
offense." The purpose of a university, as I understand it, is to foster
the exchange of ideas, and to challenge people to think about different
ideas. Some of these ideas may be very upsetting and offensive to the
people in power (The earth is not the center of the universe? Woman should
vote also?) and that is why they must be protected. But where did this so
called right "to not be annoyed" come from, who recently granted it, and
what does it mean?
There has never been a need to protect popular ideas. No one has ever been
punished for expressing them. The First Amendment was written to protect
unpopular, dangerous, or minority ideas. These ideas are what cause
change. Along with that they often cause uncomfort or hurt. Isn't the
reason that prolife people show pictures of fetuses because they want to
offend, and make people think? Are they harassing the prochoice people?
Does their simple existence harass a woman who just had an abortion? Are
the prochoice people harassing the prolife people by yelling back at them?
I think that both sides of such a debate are intending to harass, and at
the same time are fulfilling the purpose of a university by having an
important, and heated, political debate and must not be punished. Where
does this fit into the policy?
The guide sidesteps the issue of rights, "It is usually easier to deal with
issues of free expression and harassment when members of the community
think in terms of interests rather than rights." Well sometimes interests
collide, and then it is necessary to understand your rights, and the guide
does not address that. It specifically asks people, "to avoid putting
these essential elements of our university to a balancing test" How else
are people to know their rights? The policy itself attempts to test the
right to free expression. It threatens to punish people for offending and
therefore stifles speech. It uses an extremely broad definition of
harassment, but the guide never discusses what forms of speech are
protected, and thus contradict the policy. People should not be forced to
test the limits of speech because it should not be banned in the first
place.
The guide attempts to walk two sides of a line, on one hand attempting to
legally say, "thou shall not say anything that might hurt anyone" and on
the other hand saying, "Please, be nice to one another" It attempts to use
both the carrot (that tastes bad) and the stick (that is broken) at the
same time.
The contradiction between the harassment policy, and the constitution, is
also demonstrated in the guide, "It may be 'legal' to do many things that
are not in one's interest" This suggests that you may be legally (i.e.
Constitutionally) protected from certain expressions that still violate the
policy. In other words if MIT enforced the policy as it is written it
would clearly be violating the Massachusetts Civil Rights Law, and probably
the Federal Constitution. The policy must therefore be selectively
enforced, although it also states that deans and other administrative
officers, "are obligated to work to stop harassment if it is reported to
them,"
The guide also explains that ,"MIT also is quite restrictive with respect
to definition" of harassment. Since things must only create an offensive
environment to constitute harassment, the guide also says, "however
offensive behavior does not have to be found to constitute harassment in a
formal proceeding for someone to take steps to get it to stop". While this
sentence is confusing, my interpretation is that conduct that is offensive
does not even have to be determined to be harassment for someone to be
punished.
What if you are accused of harassment? The guide says the first thing to
do is, "Be sure you understand the definition of harassment" I figure by
that time anyone involved will have long been gone from the Institute. If
you do finally understand it, then you should continue to read that
paragraph, because it goes on to say that, "If your behavior has the effect
of unreasonably offending or intimidation another person it MAY be
harassment" (My emphasis) I thought that was harassment. In fact your
actions and intent are not relevant, only the feelings of the complainant.
The next step is for the complainant, or the administration, to shop around
for a forum that they like best. The policy allows them to go from one to
another bringing repeated charges until they find a forum that they like.
I know from personal experience, having won a case on free speech on
campus, that later J. Keyser chose a different forum where he was judge,
jury and executioner.
While the guide does make mention of free speech, it does so only in a
meaningless way. It further makes this fundamental freedom sound
insignificant. Universities have traditionally been places where
censorship is fought and where the rights of individuals are expanded .
Perhaps the administration should put some thought into granting rather
than taking away civil rights. The whole method chosen to deal with
harassment is misguided. There is a fundamental problem with a university
administration trying to legislate personal relationships in order to force
people, under threat of sanctions, to be kinder and gentler. I know that I
find that this guide has created an "intimidating...and...offensive
educational...environment", now if I could only figure out who to bring
harassment charges against...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sethg (Seth A Gordon):
Send e-mail to <sethg@gnu.ai.mit.edu>.
That will forward to whatever machine I read mail on this week.
JUPITER DOKE, BRIGADIER GENERAL
===============================
by Ambrose Bierce
[Continued.]
From Brigadier General Jupiter Doke to the Secretary of War.
COVINGTON, KENTUCKY, December 7, 1861.
I arrived yesterday at this point, and have given my proxy to Joel
Briller, Esq., my wife's cousin, and a staunch Republican, who will
worthily represent Posey County in field and forum. He points with
pride to a stainless record in the halls of legislation, which have
often echoed to his soul-stirring eloquence on questions which lie at
the very foundation of popular government. He has been called the
Patrick Henry of Hardpan, where he has done yeoman's service in the
cause of civil and religious liberty. Mr. Briller left for
Distilleryville last evening, and the standard bearer of the
Democratic host confronting that stronghold of freedom will find him a
lion in his path. I have been asked to remain here and deliver some
addresses to the people in a local contest involving issues of
paramount importance. That duty being performed, I shall in person
enter the arena of armed debate and move in the direction of the
heaviest firing, burning my ships behind me. I forward by mail to his
Excellency the President a request for the appointment of my son,
Jabez Leonidas Duke, as postmaster at Hardpan. I would take it, sir,
as a great favor if you would give the application a strong oral
endorsement, as the appointment is in the line of reform. Be kind
enough to inform me what are the emoluments of the office I hold in
the military arm, and if they are by salary or fees. Are there any
perquisites? My mileage account will be transmitted monthly.
[To be continued.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
therese (Therese):
When I was a girl, I had a favourite story
Of the meadowlark who lived where the rivers wind.
Her voice could match the angels' in it's glory.
But she was blind. The lark was blind.
The king of the rivers took her to his palace
Where the walls were burnished bronze and golden braid
And he fed her fruit and nuts from an ivory chalice
And he prayed...
Sing for me, my meadowlark
Sing for me of the silver morning
Set me free, my meadowlark
And I'll buy you a priceless jewel
And cloth of brocade and crewel
And I'll love you for life, if you will
Sing for me...
Then one day, as the lark sang by the water
The god of the sun heard her in his flight
And her singing moved him so, he came and brought her
The gift of sight. He gave her sight.
And she opened her eyes to the shimmer and the splendour
Of this beautiful young god, so proud and strong
And he called to the lark in a voice both rough and tender
Come along...
Fly with me, my meadowlark
Fly with me on the silver morning
Past the sea where the dolphins bark
We will dance on the coral beaches
Make a feast of the plums and peaches
Just as far as your vision reaches,
Fly with me...
But the meadowlark said no
For the old king loved her so
She couldn't bear to wound his pride
So the sungod flew away
And when the king came down that day
He found his meadowlark had died...
Every time I heard that part, I cried...
--- End of Central America ---
