putting a comment on the main blog

There has been some good discussion in the comments to my posting, and I'm not sure that everyone will open the comments, so I'll post this example:

Chris Boyd said...
Where are your rankings? The sa folks clearly state how they created their ranking and why. How would your ranking be different? Which vote do you disagree with? And by the way, you are the one being divisive - you took their name.

March 26, 2007 2:55 AM


IMC said...
Dear Chris-

I don't have rankings. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. The point I'm trying to make is about how the discussion is being conducted, *not* about the actual positions being taken.

My frustration is that, from the viewpoint of someone trying to develop opinions and positions, the debates among people "already on the inside" are so heated that it's hard to see exactly why people are for or against a particular action. I have already noted that I may share many of the positions that the sa.org folks have. However, I find the current structure of their argument so problematic, that I'm tempted to take opposing positions just because I think their tactics are so objectionable. And as I watch myself experience that reaction, I gain some insight into how local politics become so overheated.

Perhaps a metaphor would help (I admit it is not perfect, but maybe it will add clarity); As a professor, I have students working for hours and hours on assignments, that I then grade. I believe that I have a duty to be crystal clear in my criteria for those grades, particularly when I am giving out grades like -8 (I think that was Gerry's grade on sa.org) on a scale of -18 to 18. If I buried my grading criteria in a long series of essays, and then handed out such grades, my students would go ballistic.

Of course, this metaphor is not a perfect match. However, the basic principle is the same. If one is going to publicly flunk people on something that they are spending huge amounts of time and energy on, I believe it is rude to do so with anything less than crystal clear criteria.

My choice of a name for my blog is intentional -- again, I have a structural objection to the sa.org website. To set themselves up as the arbiters of what a sustainable amherst needs appears to be hubris. I'm demonstrating that they do not own this vision, much as they may be developing positions about how best to achieve that vision. The name of my blog demonstrates that they share those values with me, and many others.

As a practical matter, I strongly doubt my blog will siphon traffic from their site. If somehow it does, than perhaps I could post a prominent link to their site. I don't think any of us need to worry.