Re: drive-thru education (not)

Luiz Ernesto Merkle (lmerkle who-is-at julian.uwo.ca)
Thu, 26 Nov 1998 11:42:35 -0500 (EST)

Phil,
I'm not following this thread and I should have done my "hands UP"
long ago. With the risk of being redundant, the appended message from
Joseph Randsell, from the Peirce-list(Semiotics) is another example of
the commodification of human activities.

Last month, David Noble gave an interesting lecture here at the
University of Western Ontario.
He criticized the practice of certain Distant Education
Institutions in which students have to sign contracts before attenting
classes in order to pass the copyrights to the university/company that
sells the courses.

Yes, teachers, researchers, students, lectures, are of course out
of the loop once the course is available as a commodity through the www.
- 'Why do we need THEM?' :(

Luiz

Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:05:33 -0600
From: "ransdell, joseph m." <ransdell who-is-at door.net>
To: peirce-l who-is-at TTACS.TTU.EDU
Subject: another department sold

from the Chronicle of Higher Education Nov 25, 1998:

DESPITE OBJECTIONS from within and outside the institution,
the University of California at Berkeley has signed a
$25-million, five-year research agreement with a Swiss
life-sciences company, Novartis. Under the agreement,
Novartis will provide money to the university's plant and
microbial biology department in return for first crack at
commercializing the department's research findings.

------------

going . . . going . . . sold! Next department, please!

posted by Ransdell

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph Ransdell <ransdell who-is-at door.net> or <bnjmr@ttu.edu>
Department of Philosophy, Texas Tech University, Lubbock TX 79409
Area Code 806: 742-3158 office 797-2592 home 742-0730 fax
ARISBE: Peirce Telecommunity website - http://www.door.net/arisbe

On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, nate wrote:

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Graham <pw.graham who-is-at student.qut.edu.au>
> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Thursday, November 26, 1998 7:15 AM
> Subject: Re: drive-thru education (not)
>
>
>
> Corporations are taking over everything because Goverments are
> abandoning everything. More and more schools are signing
> contracts with Coke and Pepsi because school boards, tax payers,
> etc are no longer willing to fund Public Education. In
> reference to Phil it seems the trend is just the opposite of the
> dialectical position you mentioned which maybe makes that
> position even more important.
>
> In the U.S they say our legacy is based on Locke's social
> contract that Diane mentioned earlier. We have a constitution
> that applies to goverment, but not to corporate america. One
> does not have constitutional rights in reference to a
> corporation. We have a man named Bill Gates who is wealthier
> than many if not most countries.
>
> This at some level reminds me of Phil's earlier attacks at
> diversity or progressives. Regress is being seen as progress as
> in the cuts in education, cuts in aid to the poor etc. Business
> and corporations are being sold as the ones who can solve all
> our social ills. I think its easy to see corporations as taking
> over while not acknowledging the fact that goverments, society,
> schools see them as an easy solution to our social problems. I
> just get the feeling we have been here before. Who says
> history is dead?
>
> Nate
>
> Diane wrote:
>
> Phil,
> >>
> >>at the risk of being a reductionist: the fact is corporations
> are taking over
> >>EVERYTHING. So, it seems to me now is the time to strategize
> how to use
> >>that to the advantage of an education;
> >
> Phil wrote:
>
> >Sorry. I cannot countenance accepting such a trend. In fact, I
> would go so
> >far as to suggest that it cannot continue. The trend for
> academics,
> >asepcially those in administrative positions, to take up the
> discourse
> >legitimises the process. It is an abhorrent trend thought for
> me to think
> >that academics would succumb to or endorse such a thing. Here,
> dear Hodges,
> >we definitely diverge. Dialectic opposition is the only course
> of action
> >for conscientious educators.
>
>
>