[5204] in Central_America
New quotes for Tue Nov 30
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Central America)
Tue Nov 30 04:13:51 1993
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 04:12:39 -0500
From: Central America <root@charon.MIT.EDU>
To: ca-mtg@charon.MIT.EDU
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckclark (Calvin Clark):
Sorrow
When my grandmother was dying
She could forget everything she hated,
How my grandfather laid
His hard farmer's hands on her
And wrung out sons:
How she loved her sons,
But how bitter the act of love was,
Why she was a dark
And melancholy woman.
Maybe joy is a matter of losing
You earthly connections,
Maybe only then can you love
Clean, without hatred or desire.
Once when I was a boy
I was walking in woods
I thought I knew, near dusk,
And suddenly everything went strange,
The light, the leaves on the ground:
Shadows pointed east
So I walked west, the way
I thought I had to go,
But nothing came clear,
Nothing but sunlight burning
Through oaks, blinding me
Until I found the shadow
Of one trunk to walk in:
I followed it, came
To a young tree, took it
In my hands
Like a woman's waist,
Forgot to be afraid, not caring
As long as I held on.
My mother told me this:
When my grandmother was dying,
She turned to a nurse
And asked, ``Are you my child?''
The nurse said, ``No.''
My grandmother took her hand,
Held on hard: whispered, ``Well
It doesn't matter then.
It's all right.
Yes. All right.''
-T. R. Hummer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
lsc (Lecture Series Committee):
LSC Movies for the week of Dec 3 to Dec 5
Fri. Dec 3 Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) [???] 54-100 7:30
Our salute to Audrey Hepburn concludes with her famous role as Holly
Golightly, the exuberant socialite who meets up with a frustrated young
writer (George Peppard). Directed by Blake Edwards and featuring the
Oscar-winning song "Moon River" by Henry Mancini. [Please note the
special room for this feature.]
Fri. Dec 3 The Muppet Christmas Carol [G] 26-100 7 & 10
The Muppets return in this delightful remake of Charles Dickens' classic
Christmas tale. Michael Caine makes the most of his role as Ebenezer
Scrooge, tormenter of the kind, but luckless, Bob Cratchit (Kermit the
Frog). All of your favorite muppets appear including The Great Gonzo,
Rizzo the Rat, Fozzie Bear, Rolf, and, of course, Miss Piggy.
Sat. Dec 4 The Firm [R] 26-100 3, 6:30 & 10
Mitch McDeere is about to graduate from Harvard Law School when he gets
an offer he can't believe from a Memphis law firm. Well, maybe he
shouldn't have believed it. When two associates are killed in a
mysterious explosion, and the FBI starts asking Mitch questions he can't
answer, he starts to have second thoughts. But is it too late? Starring
Tom Cruise, Gene Hackman, Ed Harris, Holly Hunter and Gary Busey.
[Please note the special matinee screening and show times for this feature.]
Sun. Dec 5 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan [PG] 10-250 7 & 10
The Enterprise is destroyed by the Klingons. Oops, just kidding. While
surveying desolate planets for a secret Federation research project, the
USS Reliant stumbles across--and comes under the control of--an ancient
human war criminal (Khan) stranded twenty years earlier by then-Captain
Kirk and the Enterprise. Armed with that ship and his knowledge of
Genesis--an experimental terraforming device which, as a side effect,
disintegrates everything in sight--he vows vengeance on Kirk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information, call the LSC MovieLine, 258-8881,
or the LSC office, 253-3791.
MIT or Wellesley ID required, one guest allowed per ID.
Admission to movies is $2.00 and a 20-Admission
Superticket is available for $35.
Classic Movie shows end before the start of the second
show of the corresponding Friday series movie.
Problems and changes to the mailing list should be addressed to
info-lsc-request@zurich.ai.mit.edu
This service is neither maintained nor supported by the
MIT Lecture Series Committee.
To see this information again, finger -l lsc@martigny.ai.mit.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rlcarr (Richard L. Carreiro):
[Reprinted (with permission) from the December 1993 issue of the
Political Issues Committee Newsletter of the National Writers Union
(UAW Amalgamated Local 1981, AFL/CIO). For permission to reprint or
repost, contact Bob Chatelle, kip@world.std.com.]
Speech Codes, Harassment, and Disempowerment
Early in November, the Massachusetts Institute for Tech-
nology proclaimed a new speech code in a booklet titled
"Dealing With Harassment at MIT." The code defines harass-
ment extremely broadly to include "any conduct, *verbal* or
physical, on or *off campus*...which creates an intim-
idating, hostile, or *offensive* educational, work, or
living environment." (My italics.) In the booklet's
introduction, one reads: "Freedom of expression is essential
in a university. So is freedom from unreasonable and dis-
ruptive offense." And "It is usually easier to deal with
such questions if one thinks in terms of *interests* rather
than *rights*." (My italics again.) MIT Associate Provost
Samuel J. Keyser was quoted in the November 5 *Boston
Globe*: "What we're saying is everyone has the right to
freedom of speech, but there are consequences to that right.
We're just asking them to think about those consequences
before they speak." Such consequences, according to the
guide, include "termination of employment or student
status." Say what you like, but if we don't like it you're
out of here.
Few phenomena of the repressive Reagan-Bush-Clinton era
depress me as much as the proliferation of campus speech
codes. Freedom of speech means nothing if "unreasonable"
and "offensive" speech is banned. And free speech is not an
interest--it is an inalienable *right*. As for "hostile
environment"--like "community standards," which was also
foisted upon us by a right-wing Court--it's a term that is
dangerous because it means both everything and nothing.
*Environment* has no objective meaning. Anything you per-
ceive--including the way I dress--can be construed as part
of your environment. If you hate unions, and I wear my
National Writers Union button, I have introduced a hostile
element into "your" environment. If you don't like my but-
ton tell me. Or walk away. But don't take away my right to
wear it.
The right to speak includes the right to talk back and
also the right not to listen. My First Amendment rights are
limited by your First Amendment rights, and we are equal
under the law. *This* is the proper way to adjudicate
charges of verbal harassment. Universities, instead,
"balance" First Amendment rights against a bogus pseudo-
right--a "right" to an inoffensive environment where no one
is ever allowed to say anything that might conceivably
offend someone else or hurt their feelings.
The "hostile environment" principle was first affirmed
by the Court in 1986 in the case of *Meritor Savings Bank v.
Vinson*. The Court spoke again last November 9 in the case
of *Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.* In some ways,
*Harris* is not a bad decision. It affirmed a "reasonable
person" standard. That is, it's not sufficient that the
complainer alone consider the speech or behavior hostile or
abusive. It is further required that a "reasonable person"
would concur. Also, unlike the MIT speech code, "merely
offensive" speech is not actionable. But the Court did
little to clarify "hostile environment" and the term still
could be construed as applying to non-targeted speech (e.g.,
a poster on the wall), speech among peers, speech that is
easily avoided, and speech that can be effectively
countered. This, I'm sure, is not the Court's intent but I
see nothing in the decision to discourage frivolous
complaints.
The complainant in the recent case was Teresa Harris and
her grievances were with Forklift's president, Charles
Hardy. By Court accounts, Hardy's behavior was crude and
obnoxious. Some of his offenses went beyond mere speech,
and many of his remarks specifically targeted Harris.
Because of the power relationships of the workplace, escap-
ing or talking back were not realistic options.
In reading about the Harris case, I could not help but
wonder: Where was Teresa Harris's union? Where were the
other unions at Forklift Systems, Inc.? Why were there not
shop stewards and grievance officers in Hardy's office
telling the ill-mannered slob, "Clean up your act and stop
abusing your power, or we walk out and shut you down"?
In the November issue of the Boston Local's newsletter,
*Rough Draft*, Michael J. Brown writes a letter questioning
the wisdom of the NWU using the courts to pursue our goals.
Among other things, Michael says: "If as a union, through
public, collective, direct actions against the publisher
(call ins, walk ins, buy ins, boycotts, pickets, etc.), we
can get the publisher to change its behavior, then we have
changed the relationships of power between the individual
writer and the publisher--on a permanent basis...If we go to
court, we have only relied on the State, not ourselves act-
ing together through the union, to force the publisher to
change its behavior. No change in the relationship of power
occurs."
Michael's letter brings me to my core concern: the current
"liberal" consensus that the only solution to problems is to
increase the power of authorities (the State, the Courts,
college administrators, etc.) and then beg them for
"protection." The problem, we are told, is not the abuse of
power. The problem is our peers--our fellow workers, our
fellow students. Those with power--using the time-honored
tactic of divide and conquer--tell us that the powerless are
the problem. In my generation, students threw college
administrators out of their offices. In this generation,
students flock to administrators and beg them to silence and
censor fellow students. Minority students are persuaded
(often by their teachers, who should know better) to demand
speech codes. But, whenever codes have been in effect,
those most often prosecuted under them are minority students
themselves.
I'm very suspicious when authorities piously insist that
*their* power is not a problem and that the real problem is
*our* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. For one thing, the
insistence of the politically correct that we pigeonhole
people and judge them solely on their race, sex, or sexual
orientation is in itself bigoted. For another, the fact
that power is disproportionately held by white heterosexual
males does not mean that most (or even very many) white het-
erosexual males have appreciable power. My father was a
straight white man. He had no power--he was a factory
worker (and union member) who died in his mid-sixties
leaving nothing but debt and broken dreams. If all power
were tomorrow placed in the hands of differently-abled
African-American lesbians, we would no doubt see short-range
gains. But if power were to remain so concentrated, it
would inevitably be abused. Concentrated power always
corrupts, no matter the sex or hue of those who wield it.
Patriarchy is structural.
The alternative to benevolent fascism--democracy--is not
for the thin-skinned. The free marketplace of ideas can be
a bruising, abusive, hostile place. As a gay man, I have
lived in a "hostile environment" all of my life and I
wouldn't have had it any other way. As Nietzsche said,
"That which does not kill me makes me stronger." I prefer
being free and strong to being a coddled slave. Colleges
should prepare students to live as citizens in a democracy.
Instead, politically correct spineless administrators condi-
tion unthinking fawning subjects to serve the soulless cor-
porate State.
--Bob Chatelle, Boston Local
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorokin (Jessie Stickgold-Sarah):
And would it have been worth it, after all,
After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,
Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,
Would it have been worth while,
To have bitten off the matter with a smile,
To have squeezed the universe into a ball
To roll it towards some overwhelming question,
To say, "I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all" --
If one, settling a pillow by her head,
Should say: "That is not what I meant at all.
That is not it, at all."
And would it have been worth it, after all,
Would it have been worth while,
After the sunsets and the dooryards and the sprinkled streets,
After the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along
the floor --
And this, and so much more?
It is impossible to say just what I mean!
But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen:
Would it have been worth while
If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,
And turning towards the window, should say:
"That is not it at all,
That is not what I meant, at all."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
starflt (Derrick Kong):
491. Learn to recognize greenhorns and sitting ducks.
492. Don't show up after you offer someone a life.
493. Bring a bar of soap to the health club whirlpool.
494. Disturn the peace.
495. Sit in the home bleachers and cheer for the other team.
496. Pretend you're listening.
497. Step on your dance partner's foot.
498. Don't back up your computer data.
499. Cast the first stone.
500. Don't call your mother.
from Life's Little Destruction Book
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
therese (Therese):
Oh freddled gruntbuggly... Thy micturations are to me/ As
plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee. Groop, I implore
thee, my foonting turlingdromes. And hooptiously drangle
me with crinkly bindlewurdles,/ Or I will rend thee in the
gobberwarts with my blurdlecrungeon, see if I don't!
- Vogon Jeltz
--- End of Central America ---
