Number 1:
In respect of their conversation they are said to be humble and lowly in outward show, but yet of nature very contentious and unquiet, doting about questions and strife of words: whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, and evil surmisings. Their mouths do speak proud things and swelling words of vanity: likewise dangerous things. The are bold and stand in their own conceit: they despise government and fear not to speak eveil of them that are in dignity and authority. . . . they are libellers, and do speak evil of those things which they know not.
Number 2:
As we are all aware blogs and email have 'democratized' communication; anyone with access to a computer can get in the game as writer or spectator. In many ways this is a good thing, for it reduces the elitism of 'publication' and the control of opinion by opinion 'sellers.' Nonetheless, this 'democracy' is also permissive of saying almost anything, about almost anyone or anything, using any language, no matter how distasteful, disrespectful, or dismissive. . . . any reading of the rhetoric, and of the blogger and email traffic, on all sides of the lacrosse case, however, makes clear that at many times such self-awareness, not to speak of self-restraint, has given way to a speech intended not to clarify but to embarrass, punish, demean, or humiliate . . . these criticisms are often couched in language that reflects profound disrespect not only for the faculty member but for the university.
Bureaucrats are bureaucrats, I guess. I'm put in mind of a rant of Louis Menand's at MLA of a couple of years ago where he said, in effect, those folks who aren't as smart as we should shut up, sit down, and know to listen when their betters are talking. Some things don't change.
2 comments:
It looks like Lange laments not the fierce engagement over the issues, but the fact that bloggers fight using a different set of behaviors than do academics. He doesn't like the easy elision of "free speech" and "free-for-all."
It reminds me of folks on the chess site I frequent who complain when they get tricked into draws, or when they run out of time and their opponent claims a win by default. "That's not gentlemanly," they whine.
In response to this, there's a saying often used in the Chess forums that I also find applies to Lange's comments:
"War is war, loser."
No question--and this is a response we so often hear from people in positions of authority. I guess what I find most disturbing is that he makes no mention of the fact that the university basically threw the accused students, and their entire athletic team, under the bus--before any guilt had been determined. And as it turns out, it's highly likely that the only 'crime' these kids committed was being kinda dumb. Seems like that's fairly pertinent to the discourse he's addressing.
Post a Comment