The Machine is Us/ing Us (Final Version)

I just had to share this really interesting video from Professor Michael L. Wesch from Kansas State University. He is profiled in a Chronicle of Higher Education article about a cultural anthropology course where students are doing an ethnography of You Tube. Really great article, but what is interesting is the very thoughtful way Professor Wesch is using You Tube as a teaching and learning tool. Check out the video interview from the Chronicle article. The video linked here reflects on what has become to be known as Web 2.0. Using this video format, he raises all kinds of great questions about how we use technology, what relationship we have to that technology and the ways in which it can serve as a means for connection (or disconnection). I just though the video was so interesting, I wanted to share it.

I just may experiment with video blogging in the next version of HCOM 310!

End of the semester!?

Well, here we are at the end of the semester and I wanted to just thank all the seminars in the HCOM 310 class this semester. I really enjoyed working with you and realized, as I do everytime I work with students, how much I learn from all of you! This week's dialogue projects have been a great example of that. With our last seminar going tomorrow, I just wanted to make sure to capture what I was thinking. Each topic has really made me think about a new issue. I hope you won't mind if I steal one or two of these topics for next spring's HCOM 310 class!

I also want to compliment each of our seminars for creating such interesting (and unique) learning communities. Just listening in or sometimes participating has been a great experience for me as a teacher. Sometimes we don't just get the chance to let you all "drive the bus" so to speak, and Its a great experience to see what happens when you do. I was first introduced to seminar learning as a student at Muhlenberg College. It was such a small school, most of the classes in my major (history) were seminars. I had at least two that I remember that were research seminars. It is also typical in grad school as well as a method to learn from each other. For these experiences, I really learned the value of taking responsibility for engaging others in dialogue. I have to say, however, that it is a rare experience, typically only possible in private schools. For example, the picture above is a seminar from St. John's College which bases all of its courses on the seminar. I guess what I want to say is that having been a student in seminars, taught seminars at Sonoma State (in the Hutchins School--which also uses seminar based learning) and having researched student learning in seminars as part of a year long research project, I can truly say you all did a fantastic job of using the best techniques seminars offer to their advantage. Kudos to all of you. Have a great summer!

The Cost of War

I was inspired by our conversation to look for soldiers' points of views. This is a selection from a film produced by New Spark Media, which according to their website was formed "in response to the increasing consolidation and conglomeration of media outlets and the marginalization of independent media." What do you think?

An interesting example...

I regularly browse higher education blogs to keep abreast of things happening on other campuses and I came across this story about how Georgetown Law School (a Jesuit school) would not support a student's internship with Planned Parenthood because it did not want to fund advocacy for abortion rights. What is interesting to me was how the student raised the question of inconsistency at the university. Here's a quote from her:

“If Georgetown wants to be a Catholic University it has the freedom to identify as such,” she said. “If the school wants to abide by Catholic doctrine it should do so consistently and prevent all activities the Church disagrees with. This includes prosecutors’ offices that impose the death penalty, gay rights organizations, political candidates and judges that hold positions that disagree with the Catholic church, military law organizations and human rights organizations (the majority of which support reproductive rights, as well).

“When we apply to Georgetown Law, the most you hear about the Jesuit tradition is that [the school] supports students doing work in the public interest,” she added. “If I ever knew that taking part in women’s rights issues would lead to a chilling effect, I don’t know if I would have ever considered coming here"

This really got me thinking about the public/private divide we have been discussing this semester. I guess if you pay to go to a private school you need to accept some "chilling" of speech. Does that mean you have to agree with everything the institution holds dear? Where is the room for dissent and development of new ideas? Now I attended a Catholic law school as well and I remember two things about that experience related to this student's experience. There were crosses in some of the classrooms and I had one law professor who was a priest. He did not wear clerical garb to teach, but I often wondered whether he did elsewhere. I don't recall feeling like I could not speak about certain issues because it was a Catholic school but I do recall how some Jewish colleagues did notice things more than I did at the time.

Even though the Georgetown example is about a private school--and there have been private schools around a long time, I come back to the idea of whether illustrates what can happen when speech becomes more "privatized." If you control (or own) the space where speech/expression can occur, you have much more power to control what expression happens there (or is promoted off campus!) Yet, there are limits. While we all make choices where to go to school or where to work, isn't there some danger here that the fewer public spaces we have the less speech we may see? What do others think about this?

Responding to Hate Speech

This week, we are deliberating about hate speech--what it is, what free speech issues it raises, and how to respond to that speech in responsible (i.e. ethical) ways. We watched a film from the Working Group this week-- The Fire Next Time -- which I found to be a great examples of how to spark conversation about the issue. Based on our discussion yesterday in class, there is a lot more to talk about.

I was thinking about the question of how one responds to hate speech. The Working Group also made another film about hate in Northern California. I've not seen this one (but am going to see if I can Netflix it soon!). The companion KQED site has a section on response from local leaders. One excerpt caught my eye. In 2001, someone vandalized gay and lesbian themed books in the San Francisco public library. As San Francisco police detective Milanda Moore notes, people need to respond to hate; otherwise, it risks allowing it to continue.

"I always tell people that when you see the slightest thing that leads you to believe that someone has a hate bias, pay attention. Don't leave those things unchecked ... little things can build up into big things. If you see that someone is vandalizing library books, take the time to report it immediately. If you see someone outside writing on the side of the building, putting [up] swastikas, or someone talking about killing immigrants or something, take the time to call. Because it's that type of thing that leads other people; it may not even be that suspect, but it leads people to think that's OK. And in societies where such things are OK, that's where you start to see hate crimes flourish."

What's interesting to me here is the connection she makes between silence and consent, between the expression of hate speech and hate crimes. It highlights a difficult balance. One the one hand, it seems reasonable to want to promote a society that values open discussion and expression, a society that protects, or makes it safe, for people to live and work. American Wonder says it nicely in her blog: "One thought that stuck with me throughout the day connects our right as a citizen to the freedom of speech with a climate of fear and discrimination- are we free where hate exists?" Are we free where hate exists? That simple question really has me thinking.

So I was thinking about Moore's suggested response. In reporting someone writing on the side of the building, what are we doing? Are we directly responding to the speech (i.e. the climate of hate) or to the destruction of the property? What if that person was just outside the library spewing hate speech? I am always struck by the ends to which we will protect property (library walls) but be hesitant to protect people from the impact of hate speech (which some critical legal theorists have described as akin to "fighting words," a category of speech not protected by the first amendment).

So, I wondered what the library did in this case. Turns out they decided to make the vandalism done to those books the subject of an art project-- in other words, more speech. Called "Reversing Vandalism," the library also held workshops on responding to hate and screened the film. It also prompted a lot of media coverage. This seems like the perfect ethical response--turning hate into a learning moment and responding in a way that does not promote hate in reverse.

Needless to say, I am really looking forward to our discussion tomorrow to see what we all make of this.

Censorship of Ethical Editing?

I have to say, I was struck last week by the question we were discussing of what kinds of curriculum teachers (or public schools in general) should have, who decides what that curriculum is to be, and how many hands are in the pot, so to speak. Its a sticky issue and my many lenses on the matter force me to look carefully through those of others. As a teacher--of course a college teacher--I am always amazed at the degree of freedom I have in planning classes, readings, discussions and the like. Of course, I do run up against some limitations and its just that point I want to write about this week.

I raised the observation in class that since we are discussing the example of Annie Sprinkle this week in seminar, that I wanted to show a clip from Monika Treut's film "Female Misbehavior" a film I first saw years ago at the Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Film Festival. It was the first time I'd heard of Annie Sprinkle and was I floored. I just don't think I had ever seen anyone like her. Since Nan Levinson has a chapter about Sprinkle in Outspoken, our text for this class, I thought it was a perfect opportunity to have all of us view and decide.

But, as I was screening it last week and I just decided it was "too much" for class. Now Polgara, in our class, lamented that this was interesting that I might "censor" myself. I think its a little bit different from this assessment, so I want to consider an alternative.

I think its partly an ethical question and, frankly, a fear of a little embarrassment, than it is censorship, but I would be interested in seeing what others think. As a gay man, I am constantly aware of how sexuality is contested in contemporary U.S. society--especially anything remotely "different" or out of the mainstream. Annie Sprinkle, and other self described pro-porn feminists like Susie Bright (caution--some nudity here) were part of a wave of "pro-sex feminists" who pushed back at other feminist critiques of pornography. Sprinkle, and her unabashed attempt to demystify women's bodies, really pushed the envelope a little, some say, a little to far. I think what I was afraid of doing was re-producing those battles in class without the requisite groundwork. Would it be ethical to through the film out there and just see what happens? Or, would we need more background to discuss it in an ethical way? Or, was I just afraid to be the professor who showed "porn" in class. :) (Although this film is not porn, but documentary, experimental, and about someone who claims an identity as a performance artist).

I think I was also shaped by one prior experienc. When I first taught my GLBT history course at CSUMB (the first official such class to be offered here) I was nervous about it. During one film, I had a few students walk out of the video, presumably because it showed men kissing. A few critical teaching evaluations later about those films.... and you get the picture. So, I thought at the time... "oh my, this is about me and I should have been more respectful of those students." But, upon reflection, I realized that my reaction was a classic example of how self-censorship happens. Why should I apologize for a film showing real gay people!? What's to be ashamed of here? So I vowed it would not happen again.

Hmm... so now I'm back to this semester, and I just can't show that film. I wonder why this pushes my buttons and whether students would even care as much about it as I do. This is definitely worth further discussion.

Net Neutrality

What a great conversation in class this last Thursday! We really raised a lot of questions (and did not get to raise others) about political speech and issues of control, security and the limits of dissent. I am sure we will continue to explore these questions more... One thing that struck me was the discussion of control over the spaces where free speech can happen. Or, as Cass Sunstein suggested in the film Some Assembly Required, a classic way that people in power control dissent has been to control where dissent can happen.

So, in the spirit of that conversation, I wanted to share the really interesting video clip I read about on Chuck Tyron's blog, The Chutry Experiment. It's about the concept of net neutrality, which the folks at Google define as

"Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet."

We will be exploring the question of how controlling where speech/expression happens is and has been an important issue in free speech, including on-line. So, two filmmakers, Susan Buice and Arin Crumley, whose film Four Eyed Monsters is about this concept, have included it on their website to be shared around the net. I found this really provocative. Click the link below to view this film. What do YOU all think?