[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Intimidation
- From: Michelle in Nevada <5alive31@CHARTER.NET>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:15:18 -0800
- In-reply-to: <B8913885.8EA4email@example.com>
- Reply-to: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
- Sender: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
Much as I have enjoyed many of your discussions and suggestions over the
years, I think that some of the stuff you have said could be understood in a
different way than you may have intended it.
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, when you
attempt to turn the list against Victor, all the things that I didn't want
to believe about you come into play.
Please, Dave. I know you hold strong convictions and that Victor holds
strong convictions. Do not attempt to make us chose between you--especially
on the grounds of "The source of Victor's obsession with me is not clear
(though I have some ideas about this)"--which, in the very least, makes your
comments look worse and worse to me.
You are both strong advocates for the same cause, with excellent facilities
of thought at your disposal. Please work toward that cause and stop trying
to destroy one another.
From: Dave Stratman <Newdem@AOL.COM>
I would like to address an issue which I believe concerns us all.
Two weeks ago Victor suggested that I am a Communist, because I have
repeatedly pointed out that the Business Roundtable is behind high stakes
testing and standards based reform.
One week ago Victor said that "The statements you cite are worthy of a
neo-Nazi apologist for the Holocaust." In other words, he accused me of
being an apologist for one of the worst crimes of the 20th centurybecause I
argued that many ordinary Germans resisted Nazism
Many times on this list Victor has ridiculed as "conspiracy theory" my
analysis of the policy goals of the Business Roundtable and other corporate
backers of education reform and yet has refused to offer a substantive
critique of my analysis or to advance one of his own.
The source of Victor's obsession with me is not clear (though I have some
ideas about this). It is clear, however, that calling someone the most
opprobrious names in our culture is intended to have an effect. It is
intended to intimidate and to limit debate and discussion over
extraordinarily important issues.
I myself am used to this kind of attack and am quite prepared to deal with
it. Victor knows that. His attacks are intended not so much to intimidate me
as to silence you. If you join in the discussion or express ideas of which
Victor does not approve, you too may be called a Communist or a Nazi.
Not everyone on this list who might like to take part in the discussion of
these important issues is prepared to deal with these vicious and
unwarranted insults and attacks, nor should they be. Heated, substantive,
strongly felt discussion is fine and healthy, but name-calling, evasion, and
intimidation are inappropriate. They have no place on this list.
Editor, New Democracy
5 Burr Street
Boston, MA 02130