| [College of ACES] | [University of Illinois] | [Illinois CES] |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A long time ago, I was asked to become the Business Manager of a 100 year old private school in Chicago that had gotten itself in serious financial trouble. My tenure began with me being characterized by many "professionals" in the school as an ignorant blue-collar worker with no degrees and not an hour of experience or training in accounting. However, I was extended remarkable levels of trust by the Board, in part I have been told, because I thought differently and because I was a bulldog in the various issues I took on.
During one of the first general teacher meetings I attended, I gathered my papers after listening for about half an hour, got up and said that I was leaving. I explained, before walking out of the room, "Most everything I have heard here so far is that we could run a helluva school if only we didn't have these damn kids around. So, if you'll excuse me, I have more important things to do."
It was not one of my finest diplomatic moments--and it absolutely cemented the opinions of the two factions that viewed me either as a stupid fool--or as a needed breath of fresh air.
In my own review and with the benefits of hindsight, I would say both groups were right.
_______________________________
Now, I suspect I won't very diplomatic here either, with the November debacle conclusion we are told to accept, I hear the same squeakings, "We could run a helluva ISA discussion page if we didn't have these damn arborists around."
Well, it's obviously time for a little refresher work on high schools civics where we discuss the difference between speech and actions:
Speech is exactly--and only--speech; nothing more than a series of words strung out in a line with a scattering of punctuation marks to help the words be focused and be better understood. The words we choose and select have little value in themselves individually, what really matters is how we arrange them in a line of dialog, or on a page. A dictionary is a well-ordered, sterile collection of literally all the words we can possibly use in our language, but no one reads it as a work--the magic can only occur when we consciously assemble words in some particular way to convey our thoughts, feelings and interests.
Actions, however, are a remarkably different matter. Actions are physical dynamics; they occur in the physical world; they are physical origins and consequences.
The men who framed our Constitution understood very well the difference between speech and action. The most fundamental law of this land protects "speech" with its most powerful safeguards because speech allows others access to our thoughts, feelings and interests--as we choose.
Yet that same law and our subsequent laws limit "actions"--and quite properly because actions are physical, they include the ability, the power, to do something. The laws say, don't hurt somebody, don't steal from somebody, don't kill somebody. Those are actions that the law says are wrong.
There's a significant difference between doing and saying. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater has been decided by the courts to be an "action" rather than protected speech. Because panic can have serious consequences, and pushing people into a potential panic can be deadly, that shout has been judged disproportionate to any right of monosyllabic speech. "The laws say, don't hurt somebody."
However, if someone sits in that same theater and type the word "Fire!" into their laptop word processor, it is clearly speech; it is clearly the same word, in the same location, with the same people--but it is not an action; it is elemental and singular speech.
One of the most critically important precepts of this Nation is a very simple one: you don't take action against speech itself! The right to use words as one chooses is sacred and people have died to defend that concept. To cut off, to crush, to restrict free speech is more vulgar, more repugnant, and more destructive than any possible arrangement of words themselves-- regardless of the intended vulgarity, repugnance and destructiveness of any author.
This ISA page took an action--it decided to scrub the writings, the speech, on a number of topics in the month of November and it apparently gave its explanation in http://www2.champaign.isa-arbor.com/archives/isa/treeclimbers/0687.html , seeming summed up in this paragraph:
"Those of you who regularly visit the site may notice a few messages missing. ISA reserves the right to monitor and at times delete messages. This same group will know that this has been done on very rare occasions, actually twice. On those occasions what was said was not at question but how it was said. I'm not talking about a visit form the grammer or spelling police. The purpose of the page is to provide a forum for an exchange of ideas and the ensuing discussion of tree climbing and tree care to better the practice of arboriculture. Lively and productive conversation does not require the use of four letter adjectives and racial slurs. Enough said.
"It's okay to disagree but don't get disagreeable." "
_________________________
If you've got a minute, let's go for a little ride on the Wulkiemobile and tour that paragraph:
______________
** "Those of you who regularly visit the site may notice a few messages missing."
There are more than a few messages missing, my friends; entire topic sections are gone with each and any writers to those topics sent off to the same oblivion.
______________
** " ISA reserves the right to monitor and at times delete messages."
Sorry, but the ISA does not have any intrinsic "right to monitor and at times delete messages." It obviously has the power, as we see it has wielded, but that is not the same thing as a "right." I do not remember seeing any warning or disclaimer anywhere on the ISA site that said,
"The ISA has the right to any arbitrary and non-answerable action it chooses regarding anything sent to its discussion groups. The ISA can, and without warning or reasonable explanation, do anything it wants under any claimed excuse, at any time it wishes."
Did I miss that statement? Was it somewhere on the web pages I didn't see? Or was it yet-another sad example of the distortions of the power of bureaucracies who invariably end up thinking they own the control of their various missions and forget their responsibilities to their original constituencies? Well-intentioned or not, sincere or not, there are no pre-established immunities for the destruction of public speech granted to anyone in this country.
______________
** "On those occasions [it was] what was said was not at question, but how it was said."
What the hell could this possibly mean? It resembles a sentence in English, a device usually used to convey coherent thoughts, but this is one of the flippiest, floppiest, slippery fish I have even seen. Just what is an example of "how it was said" on a page? Does that mean it was printed in Helvitica, or Times, or Courier? Was it written in all CAPS like Arborist when he's righteously indignant? Is it an excessive number of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'s?
______________
** "I'm not talking about a visit form the grammer or spelling police. The purpose of the page is to provide a forum for an exchange of ideas and the ensuing discussion of tree climbing and tree care to better the practice of arboriculture. Lively and productive conversation does not require the use of four letter adjectives and racial slurs. Enough said."
Well, whatever the expectation might have been for this group, when it is open to the public, it becomes the property of the public as a function of how they use it. It is shaped and takes on the life and character of the people who write to it. Arborists are an earthy group: they spit and curse, and they often times smell funny. They are also intelligent, thoughtful and articulate human beings. Their variety is their strength, and many people read this page more for the interplay of personalities then they do for the idle screw adjustment comments about some troublesome Stihl 030 chainsaw.
What happened in November was that women wrote to the group, stating their existence and talking about their dreams. Somewhere off in the distance, dung piles stirred and tiny-digit IQ'd slugs crawled out to their keyboards to defend their domains against those spunky threats.
The women were first shocked and hurt, not unfamiliar feelings in dealing with men, and staggered a bit, but quickly fought back, turned sarcastic and funny, and mastered the moment like bull-fighters turning their back on the bewildered bull and walked away. Laura and Sue and the Arborist's Wife simply went back to their business on other topics. So did the rest of the group, and the dust had long since settled when the eraser police arrived.
______________
It's exactly correct that "Lively and productive conversation does not require the use of four letter adjectives...;" it's also equally true, however, to understand that those same conversations do not necessarily exclude the use of four letter words.
Let's see. On my machine, the "d" key is right next to the "f" key and if I mean to say "duck" and my fat stubby fingers turn out "fuck" instead, am I suddenly not lively and productive? Will my surrounding writings wink out of existence, be banished from the page when my crime is finally noticed?
I saw a post earlier with a reference to me and some anatomical recommendations about what I should do. When I went back later to look at it, it was gone! Was I hallucinating--or did it get scrubbed? Since I clearly received the most vulgar of the infantile put-downs from that twit masquerading as a writer, was his letter deleted to protect me?
Well, I don't need any help, thank you. That guy is like a fart in an elevator. Everyone endures it for a minute, and it goes away. And if you are the kind of personality who dwells on that, or you don't break wind yourself, either stay out of elevators--or go over there to stand in line and pick up a special high-speed elevator pass for the nasally elite.
Can I offer you an image that will help you tolerate those bozos? Picture them. Their usual behavior includes keeping one finger in their nose and the other in their butt, so they have to poke at the keyboard with their appendage to get off their message that hopefully brings them five minutes of fame.
That snapshot of the yahoos isn't crude, it's not vulgar, it's not sexual; it's pathetic. Is that what's supposedly offensive to the psyche and sensibilities of the readers here? In my opinion, the important lesson is seeing that sorry fool for what he really is: a dim bulb--alone and unable to reconcile his own inadequacies--so he takes cheap anonymous shots at the hardworking women who are, or want to be, arborists.
That behind-the-scenes glimpse of the author is what allows me to not particularly care what words he uses. I'll even give him the compliment of being able to use some words at all. What does it matter? The elevator's coming up to my floor in a minute. I can hold my breath, I can step out, I can turn the page, I can shut off the computer.
So, let's see now. I've said fuck, fart, and butt. Oh, yes--and appendage. Well, that's only a half-point because the word appendage is also sometimes used for other appendages. Does that vulgar word-count get my letter bumped off the page? Will a sanctimonious editor or a newly-convened committee obliterate the individual words, thereby returning decorum and balance to the site?
Or will it be understood that these words exist in a larger context? And my efforts were satire and irony, not graphic vulgarity. In my writings that disappeared into the garbage can, none were vulgar, none were sexist, but they're still gone. My time, and the time of all the other writers--and yes, including the yahoos that started it--has been stolen. Where did that "right" to steal and throw away our words, come from? Certainly not from that mini-lecture in a paragraph quoted above.
We in this group can only write. The power of censorship is not in our hands. Nor should it be. It is also equally clear that it does not belong in the hands of the clumsy ISA decision-making that threw out everything in the topic lines based on some hidden agenda which apparently included keeping the Lumberjack's Song from those who really need it. Maybe everyone that went to the same high school as some serial killer should all go to jail too. That thinking is just as valid.
The guy who wouldn't want his daughters to be arborists evolves into wanting to buy them chainsaws just to be in defiance of the yahoos that squatted momentarily and noisily on the page. Where did his words go? They were important, weren't they? They were a valid " exchange of ideas and the ensuing discussion of tree climbing." What did he say that was wrong? He spoke first as a father, then came to the defense of his daughters, who either are women or soon will be. They could be arborists if they want. That's the stuff that tree climbers can talk about and belongs on the page.
Spare me the expected mumblings about slander and liability, or that the ISA doesn't want to be sued. That's a straw man. Or more honestly, that's the excuse we often give when we don't want to make a stand individually. Look at the green business today, hundreds of arborists sniffing and poking at trees, looking for decay, itching to chop down that hazardous tree before lawyers come knockin' at the door. Talk about elephants being pushed around by a mouse. How sad.
The truth probably is that the ISA didn't want that actual crap memorialized in its archives. It's embarrassing. What would people think of the ISA if they saw the prejudice and the hatred in the November 1997 Tree Climber's Discussion Group. Trouble is, it was there. Oh, oh. Click. Click. No more problem.
By the way, there were no racial slurs. The only racial reference that I remember was my saying something like, "When black climbers surface, they'll face the same attacks." ...or something like that, I can't tell, there's no place to go and look. It's all vapor now.
_______________
What troubles me even more personally is that the same eraser mechanism that was used today to protect me from someone's words can be used tomorrow to protect someone from my words.
Despite the assurance that technical things would never be touched, what happens when I write about the question "Is Urban Forestry is an Oxymoron?" (For the assorted morons out there, I'm not talking about you.) When I drop that shoe, are you going to protect the horrified recent graduates with degrees in urban forestry from my corrosive pen?
If I write, "some flush cuts can be OK," is that heresy printable? I already got blasted for saying that "thinning the canopy for light and air" was an overused clichi that sadly rationalized our practices much more than it meant a meaningful intervention for the health of a tree. Should that kind of seditious talk be banned like my indignant critic might want?.
______________
I'm long-winded because this is my last post here and I don't really want to leave. I assume that everything will be claimed to be unrecoverable and nothing will be put back. The other likelihood is that this is now a confrontational situation: "Who's running this page? Them or us?" In either case, what's gone stays gone.
I don't have the time any more to joust with petty tyrannies or engage in protracted debates unless there're some broader benefits that flow from the effort. What I write is important to me. What other people write is just as important to me. One of the best measures I have for thinking whether I'm writing a good piece is that I listened first and I kept those sounds in my head as I wrote my responses.
Not only has my work disappeared from the forum for which it was written, the writing of friends and people I grew to respect has disappeared as well. I can't go back and read what they wrote; their sounds no longer exist. For me this is intolerable--not as some prima donna dramatic gesture, but as someone who thinks a free exchange of language is more valuable than a PR image and potty mouth admonitions.
I wrote a piece about being 7 years old and having my work decided by a jury of nuns. * I really never again submitted my projects to agents of mediocrity and indifference to have them thrown away. I wasn't always successful, being disembowelled and left for dead on the conference table in engineering meetings is a far too familiar experience. But like Bernie, play a little music and I lurch back again.
_______________
Jeez, Bob. Whadda ya makin' such a big stink about? They're only words.
Yep, that's my point. But, when someone takes the time to pile them up a certain way--the words get to be left alone--even the yahoos have the right to have their words left alone. On this page, words are all we have.
Censorship is intolerable, well-intentioned or not.
On this page, at this time, the best thing for me is to walk away.
Thanks,
Bob Wulkowicz
_______________
*