Does grading violate the freedom of speech?

Response to responses:

> It is an amusing notion quite common in America that we are all endowed by
> nature with a self, a personality, an individuality. I personally think
> that having a self is an _achievement_. Making that self evident to other
> people is an even bigger achievement, and one that the First Amendment is
> meant (in part) to foster. Remember Cohen's jacket? It was an effortful
> attempt to stand up to the universe and say "Here I am! This is what I
> have to say to you!"

I hope it was clear that it is precisely individuality that I was aiming at protecting. My fear was twofold: I was worried about the idea of being told to develop a more distinct personality (which is what my critique said). The fact is that my personality should be distinct on its own, because there is no other LARNA posting to the newsgroup. So, I completely agree with Professor Goodwin's comment above. My other fear was that the overall idea of grading the newsgroup participation, at least based on such subjective criteria, leaves room for a potential "chilling affect" like Kara referred to. This is where the worry comes in that everyone may try to write what they think the evaluators want, and therefore risk losing their individuality.

I hope that clarifies a little.

Also, what does this mean?

:>
> Of course, when one stands up to the universe, it's also a good idea to
> have something to say that's worth it.

I hope it is not felt that I was speaking just for the sake of hearing myself. I genuinely thought out and cared about the post I wrote yesterday. However, an interesting note is that I don't necessarily completely agree with it. I think the memo contains some interesting ideas (if I do say so myself), but I am too conservative to say that grading should be completely thrown out the door. I actually liked Kara's suggestions, but really don't have a conclusion as of yet. I will let you know when I do, because that's just the type of PERSONALITY I have! (Ha Ha Ha)

Happy early Valentine's Day (since I probably won't post tomorrow)

Larna MacHutchin

Uh-oh, tropes are getting me in trouble again.

> Also, what does this mean?
> :>
> > Of course, when one stands up to the universe, it's also a good idea to
> > have something to say that's worth i
>
> I hope it is not felt that I was speaking just for the sake of hearing
> myself.

Nope! I mostly was pleased with how it sounded; if it was about anything, it was about Mr. Cohen, and also Mr. Johnson, whose activities we'll be encountering in a few weeks.

This is in response to Prof. Goodwin's quote:

> > Of course, when one stands up to the universe, it's also a good idea to
> > have something to say that's worth it.

A good statement (eloquent, even) -- but will you back it up? I mean, the graders are marking us down for not posting to a point near excess. I tend to follow your train of thought, or at least my interpretation of your train of thought in this quote. We shouldn't be forced to speak multiple times per week over issues that we might not have anything "that's worth" saying. Such coercion is certainly not conducive to the development of an "online-personality," much less the enthusiasm and passion that are usually necessary to backing a *strong* argument. (Not all of us here are professional debaters or aspiring lawyers who can successfully argue any side of any issue.) For participation grading purposes, once a week (a standard you yourself set at the beginning of the quarter) should suffice.

Anyone agree (or disagree) with me on this one?

Kara O'Brien

In article 01bc1a1f$5f7d8060$53add4cd@kara-s-machine.nwu.edu, "Kara O'Brien" wrote:

I've been watching these posts go back and forth over the past few days, and I couldn't decide whether or not to add anything to the discussion, but I have been moved to speak. There are people who eagerly participate in this news group because they think that it's fun, interesting, intellectually stimulating, or whatever other personal reasons they may have. I, however, participate in this newsgroup because I feel I am forced to. I try to do my one post a week because I know that that was what I was initially told was acceptable and expected of me. But I feel like I'm competing with the people who post multiple times daily, and I don't think that I should have to compete against them. I check the newsgroup a couple of times a day, and half the time it seems to me that the posts (especially by people who do multiple ones with lengthy ties to classroom discussions and readings) are trying to say, "Look at me" to the graders. I don't want to post a message for the sake of posting. If I don't have anything to say, if I don't feel like sharing my opinions, or if the topics don't move me to speak, I don't post. My grade will suffer for it, but I am, as others have argued, exercising my right not to speak.

How is it that forcing me to post to a newsgroup (lest my grade shall suffer) will make my self evident to other people? Because I am uninterested in participating in this whole discussion, do I have less of a self? I don't like being judged and graded by a message. These posts are not who I am--they're another part of the art of bullshit most of us have become experts at through our time here at college to get our grades, earn our credits, and walk out the door with diploma in hand.

Dana Friedlander

In article danaf-1402970300290001@axo218070.res-hall.nwu.edu, Dana Friedlander wrote:

Back to
case page.