Kansas Board of Regents, Social Media Policy: A Response to KSU President Schulz

 A lot has been written lately about the Kansas Board of Regents new Social Media Policy. If you aren't up to speed, I recommend that you read Phil Nel's blog which offers insightful analysis of the many deficiencies of the policy and links to the policy itself and other commentary on it. (Thanks Phil).

Today, KSU President Kirk Schulz  finally made a public statement. You can read it here.

Here is the text of the email I sent him:

Dear President Schulz,

Thank you for finally speaking out publicly about this new and extremely damaging policy.

I was especially drawn to the following paragraph:

"When the Kansas Board of Regents voted this policy into place, they made it clear we need to continue a broad-based conversation on social media with all constituent groups. It is my intention to work closely with KU Chancellor Gray-Little and the other presidents in collaboration with the Kansas Board of Regents on modification of the policy to one that is acceptable to all in the Kansas higher education community. This will require continued dialog among the different constituent groups and a willingness by all parties to be patient as everyone has an opportunity to present alternative views."

I am dismayed to observe that you do not specifically mention faculty or staff as "constituent groups." Indeed, you seem to envision a process whereby Regents and high-level Administrators "modify" the policy.

I personally find this to be unacceptable on two counts:

First, the policy is not amenable to "modification." It must be thrown out and completely re-envisioned.

Second, this process of designing a social media polity must involve faculty and staff as well as administrators and Regents. No one constituency should be allowed to dominate the conversation.

Very best wishes,

Christina Hauck

He got right back to me! Here's his reply:

Christina

Thanks for your note - and let me clarify.  Any changes to the policy - and many are needed- must be done with faculty and staff as leaders on the process.  I apologize that I was not more explicit in my letter.

Regards,

Kirk

So I returned the favor:

Dear Kirk,

Thanks for the prompt reply. I am heartened.

Perhaps you will consider revising the paragraph to reflect your actual intentions?  I offer the following suggestion:

It is my intention to work closely with KU Chancellor Gray-Little and the other presidents in collaboration with the Kansas Board of Regents on modification of the policy to one that is acceptable to all in the Kansas higher education community faculty, staff, and Adminstrators from all Kansas Regents institutions to craft an alternate social media policy and offer to the Board of Regents for their input and approval."

Very sincerely,

Christina Hauck 

The Will of the People

I've read quite a few comments on various blogs written in response to Judge Walker's lifting the stay on gay marriage. Many of them argue that judges should not overturn the will of the people.

Ted Olso put it pretty eloquently on Fox, asking "Would you like Fox's right to a free press put up to a vote?"

I'd like to know if conservatives would think if the majority of voters decided that women shouldn't vote?

What if the majority decided that it was in their best interests to reinstate slavery?

What if the majority of votes decided that the Emancipation Proclamation was an illegal taking of private property by the Federal Government?

And conservatives reading this? Any reply?

Freedom is Not Free

A comfortable right-wing slogan mean to shut up anti-war activists.

Let's reclaim it, as in:

The price of freedom is being willing to die for your freedom--and being willing to extend your freedom to almost anyone, even if it means you might die because of your generosity.

So let the mosques go up, let the shuls go up, let the temples of Mammon go up, and let the people worship as they will. And if--big big if--one of those worshippers turns fanatical and tries to kill you and your family, defend yourself mightily.

And if you die, let your epithet read: S/he died for freedom.

Conservative Strategy #2

Polarize. Divide the world into friend and foe, good and evil, right and wrong. Say whatever you like about your foes, even if it's false or cruel. Blame everything on your enemy. Broadcast  your point of view as loudly and as frequently as possible. Interrupt anyone who questions your point of view or moderate your claims or ask for facts.

Conservative Strategy #1

Lie. Most of the time the press will print whatever you say as if it were true and without checking facts. Your enemies (anyone who disagrees with you on any point small or large) will have their energies diverted into running around gathering up the evidence that you lied. In the meantime, you can make up more lies.

Inside/Outside

   

  I just bought this painting. It’s called “Still Life with City Scape No. 2.” The artist is Aaron Morgan Brown, formerly of Wichita, Kansas. This is a fairly typical painting by him in that he likes to combine highly incongruous elements, such as placing an electric mixer next to a statue of Cupid (?) and an orange both beneath a Tiffany lamp. What I really like about this painting though is the way that he suggests the interpenetration of realms we normally keep separate. Most obvious is the way that the room has no wall and it appears that a car is about to  drive out of it while another car is about to come in. Little less obvious is painting of the bird, a wild creature captured and immobilized on a canvas framed in gilt and hung on an invisible wall. I am interested also in the fact that the objects “in” the room—the elements of the still life—have been painted in a very precise manner, with clear-cut sharp outlines, while the street scene has been rendered in a much softer somewhat more impressionistic style. This pleases me. It makes the inner seem so much more real than the outer at the same that it undercuts the distinction between them. Perhaps this painting is an allegory of consciousness itself.  

Truth or Consequences?

Four of Ireland's Roman Catholic Bishops have now resigned in the wake of evidence that they permitted decades of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse to be perpetuated against thousands of children. "A fifth bishop [ . . . ], Martin Drennan of Galway, has said that he did not endanger children and will not resign, a position initially taken by the four bishops who have now stepped down."

The two most recent former Bishops of Ireland, Eamonn Walsh and Ray Field, issued a joint statement on Christmas Eve, saying that "they hoped their resignations 'may help to bring the peace and reconciliation of Jesus Christ to the victims' of child sexual abuse.

“'We again apologize to them,' the bishops said. 'Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have so bravely spoken out and those who continue to suffer in silence.'”

Somehow, I don't believe them. Maybe if they walked the length and breadth of Ireland wearing sackcloth and ashes, proclaiming their guilt at every church and begging forgiveness of every person, I might begin to believe that they have truly repented and aren't just putting on some dog and pony show.

And I'm not encouraged by the Arch-bishop's account of their motives, that "the church for too long had placed its self-interest above the rights of its parishioners, particularly innocent children." I mean, come on. What church has any interest greater than the well-being of its members? As long as the Church identifies AS its priests and AGAINST its members, men will continue to use the priesthood as a means to power and self-gratification.

Read the article for yourself here.