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. When the shoe is
on the other foot, or the zippers are pulled up with the left hand instead
of the right one, then we are sure to find that there will not be such
affirmations of ambiguity as a "way to go on" to paraphrase someone who
certainly escaped the rigidities of closed logical systems without thereby
falling into the chasms of irrationality.
In this case, at this time, there is a right and a wrong. I've received
many messages off list from people who thanked me for my position some of
whom also stated that they were unwilling to come forward publically. I
have some notions about why this might be the case. It smells of fear of
reprisals for not towing the politically correct line. I happen to be the
one of two who have come forward with the obvious argument as to the merits
of Mary Bryson's case. I've asked, but no one has answered, whether Bryson
was offered the possibility of staying on if she allowed males into her
class. If she was offered this alternative, I see no grounds for arguing
that her rights as a tenured professor were violated. If she wasn't then
all of my arguments, however sound they might be, are irrelevant.
In any event, all of my arguments have been made against positions that
seemed to defend her right to teach segregated classes.
Second, the appeals for "binocular" vision or the statements to the effect
that there is more than one position on this, attempt to "widen" the topic.
Widening the topic is certainly warranted if it can be shown that original
issue is contained in the redefined topic. So far, no one has bothered to
undertake this exercise.
Finally, to simply claim that critical analyses of other's positions
doesn't fit on xmca begs the question on two counts. Did the original
appeal for support fit into the supposed xmca discourse style? Has Mary
Bryson made a significant contribution to cultural-historical activity
theory? Was she denied tenure because, perhaps, while undertaking a
cultural historical activity analysis of women's issues, she began to teach
that dialectical materialism is the only methodology appropriate for social
analysis while pointing out that cultural-historical activity theory
emerges as a variety of dialectical materialism? Was she a victim of a
McCarthy style witch hunt. I think not. For what it's worth, feminism
isn't a threat to the establishment anymore, 55% of all US college students
are females, although no one knows for sure why they aren't studying
engineering (one study seems to suggest that other women put peer pressure
on them that interferes with such pursuits).
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? Is the authority of the utterance here grounded on "who's saying
it" rather than the reasonableness of what's being said? Even dialectics
admits syllogistic inference in determining the essences, which,
interestingly enough, always yield contradictions as this case has. But in
dialectics, the contradictions require movement to a consideration of the
"concrete universal", a move I attempted in my first post when I raised the
issue of "liberation epistemology" as a whole. If critical analysis and
syllogistic inference isn't part of the xmca discourse pattern, within or
without the context of dialectics, I'd like to hear what is allowable for
sorting out the issues.
Paul H. Dillon
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Cole <mcole who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 3:55 PM
Subject: ad hominum/womanum
>
>I am following the tenure discussion with great interest, but also
>some concern. We have a pretty long history, not all of it happy,
>on xmca concerning how to discuss matters of deep emotional/intellectual
>and political/etc concern without resorting to ad hominum comments about
>those who participate. When such discourse begins, it is more likely
>to lead to misunderstanding and alienation that deeper understanding.
>
>My concern results from evidence of such discourse beginning. Be careful
>please.
>mike
>