VT枪击案震惊全国，俺们校长也发email征求加强校园保安的建议。
Dear Students, Faculty and Staff –
Our hearts go out to the students, faculty, and staff of Virginia Tech and the surrounding community who have suffered a terrible loss in the wake of today’s tragic shootings. The loss of life and casualties at this point are unprecedented in U.S. higher education history, we can only begin to imagine the shock and sadness the individuals associated with this event must be experiencing.
College campuses remain vulnerable, despite state-of-the-art security efforts, because they remain free and open places of discourse that preclude total control of movement on campus. We will use this tragic incident as an opportunity to revisit our own practices.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact University Police (974-2628) or USF Counseling (974-2831).
Please join me in taking a moment of reflection and extend our deepest sympathy to the Virginia Tech family.
Sincerely,
Judy Genshaft
President
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Imus
偷懒一把，把系里关于Imus 的讨论发一下算了。
The discussion begins with a question from Professor Fields
Professor Fields: Any thoughts on this? I'm preparing a lecture on law and ethics for my Beginning Reporting class on Thursday, and I think the Imus situation is a good jumping off point.
I wanted to get a few opinions on something I've been thinking. First of all, is this a freedom of speech issue? I mean, should someone be allowed to say anything he wants without repercussion? Isn't freedom of speech really something given to the press and individuals to say what they will about the government without punishment? After all, we have laws against burning the American flag or shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
If Imus is fired, is that really censorship? I'm torn on the issue. What about these young women? Do they have a legal leg to stand on, or are they considered public figures? I would think they are considered public figures.
I'm no expert, but I want to have a frank discussion about this case in my class Thursday evening. Any thoughts will prove helpful.
From Dr. Black: Monique, good questions. We devoted the entire ethics class to the topic yesterday. Do you want copies of all the clippings, and on-line sources we used in class? I found Eric Deggans' blogs, and the Al Sharpton/Imus interview and Monday night's News Hour interview with Clarence Page and E.J. Dionne to be splendid stimulators of class discussion. (Ain't it amazing that this old prof has used to use some technology in class, and that none of the sources were more than a day old?) And/or, would you like me to join you in class for a bit?
I always try to separate the ethics issues from the legal issues. Not everyone will agree with this particular take, but here's mine (Mike, please cc me if you respond; I don't teach law, obviously!):
Legally, the Rutgers team could certainly find a lawyer eager to take on a defamation case, but I doubt that they'd win in the long run, regardless of the appeal this case would have to a jury. Imus was very very quick to say he had no malice (anticipating a defense he'd use in a pubic figure libel suit?). Were they fighting words? Probably not. Was it unscripted/impromptu protected opinion? Perhaps. What harm was caused?
(One might creatively argue that except for being offended, the basketball team may very well have benefited from the additional exposure). One might even argue that the public sphere has benefited from the discussion of racism.
In the ethics class, we explored a variety of issues. I couldn't have scheduled the controversy any more perfectly for the semester, as we had just discussed media coverage of race and were moving into the ethics of media entertainment and media economics. Students were primed to look at this as an issue of power imbalance (big white guy/mainstream media pick on relatively powerless subjects); to play out this theme, try some role reversal, asking what would happen if Al Sharpton were to make fun of the honky Utah or Brigham Young University basketball team.
Others took the media/business-as-usual track, noting how minor was the penalty doled out to Imus, how little the station and network would be hurt (even in the face of threatened ad boycott) in the long run, how more and more folks will be tuning in to watch Imus when he gets back on the air.
We looked at the idea of an apology or "transparency" or "the cleansing light of publicity" as a moral defense. There was an interesting debate over how genuine Imus was in his contrition, and whether it really can make a difference once people have been hurt.
We looked at "being offended" as the price to pay to live in an open society. There was a good debate. I had them assess how John Milton or John Stuart Mill would have responded to the dilemma. And, we considered who the other stakeholders were, what justifications they would make, and which justifications were morally sound and which were merely moralizing.
(John Rawls and the "Veil of Ignorance" is a helpful model in these
discussions.)
Ultimately (and you can imagine all the reasons this didn't occur at the very outset of our discussion), we got excellent insights about racism from the two Black students in the class. Among the observations: Old folks may not change their long-held prejudices, but we certainly should work harder in media to help younger folks be more thoughtful about our multi-cultural world.
From Dr. Dardenne:
Monique,
I agree pretty much with all that Jay has said, even though I don't teach ethics OR law. Anyone can sue anyone about anything. But in this case, I can't imagine the basketball team winning, in part for all the reasons Jay points out. In fact, as he notes, lawyers could argue that the team benefitted from all the exposure, and surely they'd have trouble proving that they were harmed much. That brings me to my point I don't think Jay mentioned. I don't know it's legal and ethical ramifications, however. I think the environment in which we live could make what he said less an issue. His attorney in a lawsuit, could put lyrics of rap music in front of the jury all day; show parts of movies and television shows; let it listen to some "shock" radio; show the jury "dating" and "model" and "idol" and "talk" show tv clips, and a few web sites, all of which could be argued promote a culture of abuse and debasement and crudeness. hell, throw in some "ultimate fighting" and "most spectacular knockout" clips as well. While what Imus said was stupid and wrong, it's one comment in a sea of such comments. This one was explicity racist and sexist, i agree, but less so that the "bitch" and "whore" flavor of some of our popular music.
I supposed I wouldn't have an airtight defense with this approach (but, of course I wouldn't defend the bastard anyway), but I can't imagine it wouldn't make a jury (and any of us) think about the cultural context of those remarks.
Is it free speech. Pretty much anything is that isn't illegal. I don't think that's illegal. Nor is it equivalent to "fire in a crowded theater," or advocating overthrow of the government. Actually, in the case, the system sort of worked. The remarks were at least tasteless and wrong, and while there may be no legal option, there are certainly other options. Suspension, public disfavor, having to go on al sharpton's radio show, etc. The question has been does the punishment fit the crime? That's a good question. I'd probably argue yes, given today's entertainment enviornment.
I could be wrong on the emphasis on cultural context, certainly in terms of what it means legally to him. If a lot of people were committing murder, it'd certainly not make my committing a murder any more permissible. But it's part of the argument worth bringing out. And, I will say that as we emphasize this kind of entertainment culture, we will have to live with more and more of its influences, whatever they may be. I have no clue if, in the long run, this is good or bad.
Jay and Mike, though, would have the more reasoned (and dependable) answers to this.
From Dr. Killenberg:
Thanks for asking these important questions.
You've received thoughtful and useful responses from Jay and Bob, my fellow tribal elders.
Jay, Bob and I seem in agreement on the law issue. I don't see solid grounds for a successful suit. I'd rather see this debate occur in the open rather than in court documents, depositions and proceedings that are not open for the public to observe much less join in.
The basketball team and its coach appear well quipped to engage Imus and others in a discussion of racism, sexism and even broader issues about our, at times, ugly culture.
Imus reminds us that we live in a society permeated with incivility, crudity, hate, violence and infantile behavior and speech. Imus, at 66, is an embarrassment to our generation. We (our generation) should be at point of moral and cognitive development that we can contribute to dialogue in fruitful ways.
We should not, however, overreact to speech we find offensive or even hurtful. Imus deserves censure. Should he or anyone else who engages in offensive, tasteful even racist speech be punished beyond the power of publicity to punish? My instincts and experience tell me we should use non-punitive means to combat and counteract the Imus's of the world when they exercise their rights to speak freely. I'd rather allow malicious, despicable speech to surface than drive it underground. Only when speech presents a clear and present danger to our society can we justify its suppression.
From Dr. Black:
Bob and Mike--good thoughts. Just to prod Bob a tiny bit, where's the line to be drawn? Fighting words? Actual violence? Clear and present danger?
I'm not going to impose specific standards of speech on folks--we wouldn't want that to happen in a democracy--but shouldn't we have something other than relativism to fall back on? (The relativistic argument is that a lot of folks have made this a crappy communications environment, and this means the status quo is OK.)
From Dr. Silvia:
We also had a conversation regarding the Imus situation in Senior Seminar; it worked nicely into the discussion of their comprehensive exams, which they handed in today (one question dealt with defining a specific issue facing journalists today and arguing both sides of the issue. One aspect of this I feel has been missed is the historical context surrounding how radio and television stations and networks are run and by whom. The original gatekeepers of broadcasting were those who we might describe as “broadcasters;” they were, in a sense, “statesmen” first and businessmen second. They lived in and were answerable to their communities and audiences. They felt an affinity for public service as the quid pro quo for gaining free access to the public’s airwaves. They believed in the spirit, if not the letter, of the 1934 Radio Act (the eventual basis for the development of the FCC) that stated broadcasters had to behave in a manner that served “the public’s interest, convenience, and necessity.” Today the emphasis is on self- interest through convenient (read: “right” demographic) programming and the necessity of making their stockholders richer. They don’t listen to or watch their own “product” and feign surprise when others who do actually take it seriously. So, in my opinion, no discussion of the Imus issue can be close to complete without considering how the supposed “gatekeepers” have changed. They’re not graduates of the Columbia School of Journalism; more often than not, it’s the Wharton School of Business. And lest anyone say “what’s journalism got to do with it,” don’t buy into the “it’s a comedy show” defense. As one of our seniors pointed out, the Imus show is simulcast on MSNBC, giving it at least the veneer of news to some viewers.
Tony
From Dr. Koski: I told my students that the comment Imus made is one more contribution to the increasing coarseness of our society. To make such a comment about some of the top college athletes in the country is both racist and sexist. Would Imus be so readily be able to come up with a crude comment about male college athletes regardless of their race? My sense is that no, he wouldn't.
The discussion begins with a question from Professor Fields
Professor Fields: Any thoughts on this? I'm preparing a lecture on law and ethics for my Beginning Reporting class on Thursday, and I think the Imus situation is a good jumping off point.
I wanted to get a few opinions on something I've been thinking. First of all, is this a freedom of speech issue? I mean, should someone be allowed to say anything he wants without repercussion? Isn't freedom of speech really something given to the press and individuals to say what they will about the government without punishment? After all, we have laws against burning the American flag or shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
If Imus is fired, is that really censorship? I'm torn on the issue. What about these young women? Do they have a legal leg to stand on, or are they considered public figures? I would think they are considered public figures.
I'm no expert, but I want to have a frank discussion about this case in my class Thursday evening. Any thoughts will prove helpful.
From Dr. Black: Monique, good questions. We devoted the entire ethics class to the topic yesterday. Do you want copies of all the clippings, and on-line sources we used in class? I found Eric Deggans' blogs, and the Al Sharpton/Imus interview and Monday night's News Hour interview with Clarence Page and E.J. Dionne to be splendid stimulators of class discussion. (Ain't it amazing that this old prof has used to use some technology in class, and that none of the sources were more than a day old?) And/or, would you like me to join you in class for a bit?
I always try to separate the ethics issues from the legal issues. Not everyone will agree with this particular take, but here's mine (Mike, please cc me if you respond; I don't teach law, obviously!):
Legally, the Rutgers team could certainly find a lawyer eager to take on a defamation case, but I doubt that they'd win in the long run, regardless of the appeal this case would have to a jury. Imus was very very quick to say he had no malice (anticipating a defense he'd use in a pubic figure libel suit?). Were they fighting words? Probably not. Was it unscripted/impromptu protected opinion? Perhaps. What harm was caused?
(One might creatively argue that except for being offended, the basketball team may very well have benefited from the additional exposure). One might even argue that the public sphere has benefited from the discussion of racism.
In the ethics class, we explored a variety of issues. I couldn't have scheduled the controversy any more perfectly for the semester, as we had just discussed media coverage of race and were moving into the ethics of media entertainment and media economics. Students were primed to look at this as an issue of power imbalance (big white guy/mainstream media pick on relatively powerless subjects); to play out this theme, try some role reversal, asking what would happen if Al Sharpton were to make fun of the honky Utah or Brigham Young University basketball team.
Others took the media/business-as-usual track, noting how minor was the penalty doled out to Imus, how little the station and network would be hurt (even in the face of threatened ad boycott) in the long run, how more and more folks will be tuning in to watch Imus when he gets back on the air.
We looked at the idea of an apology or "transparency" or "the cleansing light of publicity" as a moral defense. There was an interesting debate over how genuine Imus was in his contrition, and whether it really can make a difference once people have been hurt.
We looked at "being offended" as the price to pay to live in an open society. There was a good debate. I had them assess how John Milton or John Stuart Mill would have responded to the dilemma. And, we considered who the other stakeholders were, what justifications they would make, and which justifications were morally sound and which were merely moralizing.
(John Rawls and the "Veil of Ignorance" is a helpful model in these
discussions.)
Ultimately (and you can imagine all the reasons this didn't occur at the very outset of our discussion), we got excellent insights about racism from the two Black students in the class. Among the observations: Old folks may not change their long-held prejudices, but we certainly should work harder in media to help younger folks be more thoughtful about our multi-cultural world.
From Dr. Dardenne:
Monique,
I agree pretty much with all that Jay has said, even though I don't teach ethics OR law. Anyone can sue anyone about anything. But in this case, I can't imagine the basketball team winning, in part for all the reasons Jay points out. In fact, as he notes, lawyers could argue that the team benefitted from all the exposure, and surely they'd have trouble proving that they were harmed much. That brings me to my point I don't think Jay mentioned. I don't know it's legal and ethical ramifications, however. I think the environment in which we live could make what he said less an issue. His attorney in a lawsuit, could put lyrics of rap music in front of the jury all day; show parts of movies and television shows; let it listen to some "shock" radio; show the jury "dating" and "model" and "idol" and "talk" show tv clips, and a few web sites, all of which could be argued promote a culture of abuse and debasement and crudeness. hell, throw in some "ultimate fighting" and "most spectacular knockout" clips as well. While what Imus said was stupid and wrong, it's one comment in a sea of such comments. This one was explicity racist and sexist, i agree, but less so that the "bitch" and "whore" flavor of some of our popular music.
I supposed I wouldn't have an airtight defense with this approach (but, of course I wouldn't defend the bastard anyway), but I can't imagine it wouldn't make a jury (and any of us) think about the cultural context of those remarks.
Is it free speech. Pretty much anything is that isn't illegal. I don't think that's illegal. Nor is it equivalent to "fire in a crowded theater," or advocating overthrow of the government. Actually, in the case, the system sort of worked. The remarks were at least tasteless and wrong, and while there may be no legal option, there are certainly other options. Suspension, public disfavor, having to go on al sharpton's radio show, etc. The question has been does the punishment fit the crime? That's a good question. I'd probably argue yes, given today's entertainment enviornment.
I could be wrong on the emphasis on cultural context, certainly in terms of what it means legally to him. If a lot of people were committing murder, it'd certainly not make my committing a murder any more permissible. But it's part of the argument worth bringing out. And, I will say that as we emphasize this kind of entertainment culture, we will have to live with more and more of its influences, whatever they may be. I have no clue if, in the long run, this is good or bad.
Jay and Mike, though, would have the more reasoned (and dependable) answers to this.
From Dr. Killenberg:
Thanks for asking these important questions.
You've received thoughtful and useful responses from Jay and Bob, my fellow tribal elders.
Jay, Bob and I seem in agreement on the law issue. I don't see solid grounds for a successful suit. I'd rather see this debate occur in the open rather than in court documents, depositions and proceedings that are not open for the public to observe much less join in.
The basketball team and its coach appear well quipped to engage Imus and others in a discussion of racism, sexism and even broader issues about our, at times, ugly culture.
Imus reminds us that we live in a society permeated with incivility, crudity, hate, violence and infantile behavior and speech. Imus, at 66, is an embarrassment to our generation. We (our generation) should be at point of moral and cognitive development that we can contribute to dialogue in fruitful ways.
We should not, however, overreact to speech we find offensive or even hurtful. Imus deserves censure. Should he or anyone else who engages in offensive, tasteful even racist speech be punished beyond the power of publicity to punish? My instincts and experience tell me we should use non-punitive means to combat and counteract the Imus's of the world when they exercise their rights to speak freely. I'd rather allow malicious, despicable speech to surface than drive it underground. Only when speech presents a clear and present danger to our society can we justify its suppression.
From Dr. Black:
Bob and Mike--good thoughts. Just to prod Bob a tiny bit, where's the line to be drawn? Fighting words? Actual violence? Clear and present danger?
I'm not going to impose specific standards of speech on folks--we wouldn't want that to happen in a democracy--but shouldn't we have something other than relativism to fall back on? (The relativistic argument is that a lot of folks have made this a crappy communications environment, and this means the status quo is OK.)
From Dr. Silvia:
We also had a conversation regarding the Imus situation in Senior Seminar; it worked nicely into the discussion of their comprehensive exams, which they handed in today (one question dealt with defining a specific issue facing journalists today and arguing both sides of the issue. One aspect of this I feel has been missed is the historical context surrounding how radio and television stations and networks are run and by whom. The original gatekeepers of broadcasting were those who we might describe as “broadcasters;” they were, in a sense, “statesmen” first and businessmen second. They lived in and were answerable to their communities and audiences. They felt an affinity for public service as the quid pro quo for gaining free access to the public’s airwaves. They believed in the spirit, if not the letter, of the 1934 Radio Act (the eventual basis for the development of the FCC) that stated broadcasters had to behave in a manner that served “the public’s interest, convenience, and necessity.” Today the emphasis is on self- interest through convenient (read: “right” demographic) programming and the necessity of making their stockholders richer. They don’t listen to or watch their own “product” and feign surprise when others who do actually take it seriously. So, in my opinion, no discussion of the Imus issue can be close to complete without considering how the supposed “gatekeepers” have changed. They’re not graduates of the Columbia School of Journalism; more often than not, it’s the Wharton School of Business. And lest anyone say “what’s journalism got to do with it,” don’t buy into the “it’s a comedy show” defense. As one of our seniors pointed out, the Imus show is simulcast on MSNBC, giving it at least the veneer of news to some viewers.
Tony
From Dr. Koski: I told my students that the comment Imus made is one more contribution to the increasing coarseness of our society. To make such a comment about some of the top college athletes in the country is both racist and sexist. Would Imus be so readily be able to come up with a crude comment about male college athletes regardless of their race? My sense is that no, he wouldn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
