> First, I really don't care if anyone thinks I'm right, what I do care
about
> is that people see that there is a right and a wrong here.
Why must there be a universal right or wrong here? The fact that Daly was
working at a Jesuit College which was segregated until the 1970's is an
important context for me. A context that seperation, or integration for
that matter, can be a tool to empower or disempower and universals do not
tell us about the particulars. Not only in reference to gender, but also
race, culture and class it is apparrent that integration can be as
disempowering as it is empowering. While Daly's practice as a universal is
one I would have a difficult time supporting, as a particular (A Jesuit
College in which her books, work, class etc. are very threatening to) point
towards a context in which such a practice is justifiable. One example,
from the other side of the fence in the use of exclusion was our university
excluding all education majors from its tuturing program with the desired
affect of having more males and minorities. While they did not exclude all
women, the intent was excluding the homogenous sampling that are usually
part of the SOE program. My point being enlightenment universals besides
from being a big lie often do not handle particulars very well.
Yes, Daly was aware or given the option of allowing males into her class
and found that option unacceptable. However; I don't understand the
reasoning of such an argument, if all an administration has to do is give
you the option of doing something and if you refuse you have no rights, how
can that be called academic freedom? I am confused, help me on this one.
Yes, in an academic setting one should have access to various bodies of
knowledge which are not denied in this case, only a particular
instructional arrangement. You are not argueing that particular
instructional arrangements should be mandated are you? All classes utilize
different arrangements because of different student needs and it seems to
me her approach meets both of those needs. Personally, I would find the
independent study course much more favorable and more in line with my needs
as a student. As one male education student mentioned upon taking a
women's study course, he felt he was being personally attacked the entire
semester, in this context an independent study course meets the needs (a
safe academic setting) for both the male and female students.
> Or is it that the xmca discourse pattern excludes detailed logical
> criticism, as nate suggests? What is the pattern then? Simple tossing
in
> of opinions backed up by suitable publication records and academic
> positions?
Well, I don't know how much logical criticism has to do with it, but for me
a line was crossed and it appeared more as a personal attack than anything
else. I would argue the pattern is mutual respect for others ideas.
Knowledge, morality, right and wrong are not bias free concepts and are
deeply embedded in power and ideology. In that sense there is not a
universal right or wrong but various perspectives in which we attempt to
make sense out of this situation. An academic sense in which teachers
rights should be protected, a equity/equality sense in which Daly's
teachings, ideas etc. are an areas of tension with a particular
administration, an administration sense concerned with legalese, an
anti-affirmative action sense of putting things right again, and the
universalistic enlightment sense of "every man is created equal". There of
course are times when issues are very deeply invested in one's ideology and
a line is crossed between dialougue between a community and attack of ideas
or person's in that community. I, as well as others I am sure, have been
on, close to, or over that line at times, and it doesn't further
understanding, but rather alienates members of the community. Maybe your
comments were more of a red light of times when I felt myself writing if
not sending messages of a similar style.
Nate