Does grading violate the freedom of speech?

Varying opinions:

I have been very entertained by the debates over whether or not this is a
public forum. What is so ironic is that the aim, the objective of a public
forum is to encourage deliberation and stimulate diversity and a healthy
democratic process. What you guys have been doing in debating whether or
not outsiders should come in is that you have been partipating in a public
forum. You have reached the goals a public forum attempts to reach.
What is more interesting is the idea of whether or not this newsgroup is
of free expression. This is precisely the issue I was talking about in my
dismissal of the grading system. I don't believe free expression can
exist according to the already defined criterium. Do you guys freely
contribute and express your ideas? Dave Sheldon said he didn't but that
he thought that was better because it encouraged him to think before he
speaks. I would hope that one thinks first anyway, but if that is your
argument what do you say about people who think and then realize they have
nothing to say that they're not afraid of being judged by? In other
words, what if some people don't want to participate at all because they
are worried by the lack of free expression? In this situation we lose the
idea of public forum, deliberation, diversity. One deeply affects the
other.

I think it was Dana that went as far as to say that we shouldn't have
grades at all, but that is where I differ. I like the idea of being
graded for participation in a class that is about speech after all. I
don't necessarily think how ofen you speak is what's important. The
general idea of saying somehting when you have something to say is the
standard I go by. If I were to grade myself, even though I'm biased, I
would still give myself an A because I know that when I contribute it is
genuine, sincere, and communicative. Unfortunately the graders are
detatched from us as individual students striving to determine how we feel
about political and philosophical issues. We are not speaking completely
because we are forced to. I feel that once most people get going they
actually discover that they have an opinion, and whether or not they're
comfortable expressing it, this process helps them solidify their ideas.
Therefore, I agree with the idea of this newsgroup, I also feel it is
essential that free expression is of utmost concern, which is why Ithink
the grading standard needs to change. However, I do think that some sort
of grading is acceptable. After all, we should get used to having our
opinions critized because when we leave this democratic environment called
a university we will enter a world where the value of diversity is
replaced by tolerance. Any thoughts? Larna

In article ,
Larna MacHutchin wrote:

>I
>don't necessarily think how ofen you speak is what's important. The
>general idea of saying somehting when you have something to say is the
>standard I go by.

I completely agree with this. Some people tend to say things with more
frequency, while others speak less often but can have more to say/more
substance in their infrequent speech. I believe it has a lot to do with
personality -- extrovertedness v. introvertedness -- and very little to do
with intelligence. Therefore I, too, feel that we should be "evaluated" based
on the amount of significant substance in our speech (ideas that are genuine,
well thought out, etc.), and not only in an academic atmosphere, but in
"the real world" as well.

>I feel that once most people get going they
>actually discover that they have an opinion, and whether or not they're
>comfortable expressing it, this process helps them solidify their ideas.
>Therefore, I agree with the idea of this newsgroup, I also feel it is
>essential that free expression is of utmost concern, which is why Ithink
>the grading standard needs to change. However, I do think that some sort
>of grading is acceptable. After all, we should get used to having our
>opinions critized because when we leave this democratic environment called
>a university we will enter a world where the value of diversity is
>replaced by tolerance.

More agreement here, and a suggestion. It is obvious that many people prefer
face-to-face, "real-time" discussion and are at their best in it, just as many
others prefer to use the time and discussion in class to listen/process the
material and like the "alt. remedy" of the newsgroup to plan out and divulge
their thoughts. Wouldn't it be effective to find a way to grade students on
their *total* participation -- both/either in class and/or on the newsgroup?
As Larna said, participation *in general* is a key factor in promoting
democratic citizenship, so any kind of participation should be considered as
relevant to this process -- in our case, be it in class or on the class
newsgroup.
As I said earlier, a lot of this issue has to do with personalities, comfort
level, access (or lack thereof) to a computer several times a week, time
constraints, etc. If grading is to be impartial, especially in such a
subjective, imbalanced case of class participation on a system that is not
universally available, it should be adjusted as best as is possible to meet
these various circumstances.

Mandy Koppen

> As I said earlier, a lot of this issue has to do with personalities, comfort
> level, access (or lack thereof) to a computer several times a week, time
> constraints, etc. If grading is to be impartial, especially in such a
> subjective, imbalanced case of class participation on a system that is not
> universally available, it should be adjusted as best as is possible to meet
> these various circumstances.

One note: If I did not consider newsgroup technology to be, reasonably
speaking, universally available, I certainly would not require it. I know
it is not equally easy for everyone--that depends on previous experience,
ownership of computer etc. But I do think it is minimally available to
all, since it is relatively easy to use and available at the public labs.

As an analogy: back in ancient times, before the large-scale introduction
of xeroxing, when I went to college: there was no such thing as "course
packets." When we were required to read articles, we had to trudge to the
reserve room to do it. Inconvenient for some, yes, but universally
accessible.

> More agreement here, and a suggestion. It is obvious that many people prefer
> face-to-face, "real-time" discussion and are at their best in it, just
as many
> others prefer to use the time and discussion in class to listen/process the
> material and like the "alt. remedy" of the newsgroup to plan out and divulge
> their thoughts. Wouldn't it be effective to find a way to grade students on
> their *total* participation -- both/either in class and/or on the newsgroup?
> As Larna said, participation *in general* is a key factor in promoting
> democratic citizenship, so any kind of participation should be considered as
> relevant to this process -- in our case, be it in class or on the class
> newsgroup.

Based on all this discussion as well as what people have told me
personally, I'm seriously considering running this class next year as a
"smorgasbord." The student will be given a list of available options, and
will select which ones he/she wants to do, and what percent of the grade
they'll represent. A certain minimum percentage will have to be for some
type of participation, and some type of exam, but after that, "let freedom
ring!"

Meanwhile, though, the question is what to do this year. "Total
participation" would clearly be ideal. But then the "vagueness" problem
comes up. Can "total participation" be specified any more exactly than "I
[the instructor] know it when I see it"? On the other hand, completely
unvague, objective measures like number of newsgroup posts don't seem to
be a good measure of quality, as several of you have forcefully pointed
out.

It seems to me that there is more or less a consensus that you should be
expected to post at least once a week, and that these posts should be of a
certain quality. So how about this proposal: the New Revised Grading
Standard for the newsgroup:

1. your posts should be *regular*: "You are expected to contribute to the
discussion each week."
2. your posts should be *responsive*: " You are expected to take
responsibility for responding to the opinions and arguments of your
classmates, and for making contributions which will in turn invite
response from them.

Is that the best measure of quality? Is it unvague--do we all know what
it means?

Jean Goodwin.

In article ,
jeangoodwin@nwu.edu (Jean Goodwin) wrote:

> It seems to me that there is more or less a consensus that you should be
> expected to post at least once a week, and that these posts should be of a
> certain quality. So how about this proposal: the New Revised Grading
> Standard for the newsgroup:
>
> 1. your posts should be *regular*: "You are expected to contribute to the
> discussion each week."
> 2. your posts should be *responsive*: " You are expected to take
> responsibility for responding to the opinions and arguments of your
> classmates, and for making contributions which will in turn invite
> response from them.
>
> Is that the best measure of quality? Is it unvague--do we all know what
> it means?
>
> Jean Goodwin.

I am still not clear on this whole new grading standard. Our posts should
be regular--we are expected to contribute to the discussion each week.
Isn't that the same standard that was supposedly in place before? Last
time I looked at my lovely midterm grading evaluation, my contribution of
one post a week was marked as "satisfactory/needs improvement."

As for the second criteria, I'm still uncomfortable with the total
subjectivity given to the graders. We can respond all we want and we can
even think we are making contributions that we believe will invite
responses from our classmates, but that doesn't mean the graders will
think we are holding up our end of the "bargain." How am I supposed to
know if something is going to get a response or not? Bridget posted a
message that brought up a completely new topic to this newsgroup (that of
prayer in the public schools), but no one has responded as of yet. Does
that mean she will get a lower grade?

Dana

Back to
case page.