Riding Mimi Wesson's coattails, the CU Law Adminstration made a back-channel inquiry into whether they could join this blog-sphere as a contributor. Contributors have two privileges that the folks who only comment to postings lack: the ability to post (obviously) and access to some admin info (like other contributors' e-mails) that might "out" semi-anonymous authors. Questions of adminstrative fallout from being "outed" aside (see the JQET "Chewbacca defense" debacle), how do you folks feel about granting the Administration contributor status on CUbLawg? My fear is that this forum will be usurped as yet another channel for promoting the party line. The counter-argument is that, as a forum that embraces free speech and a diversity of viewpoints, we ought not self-censor contributors. Whaddaya think?
28 comments:
I'll be honest--I think that would be pretty lame. Nope, I don't have a well-reasoned argument, and if we're allowing professors to contribute (which I like), it's hard to have a principled reason for not allowing administrators. (Can't just say it's only for students/alumni anymore.)
Maybe my problem is that the admins already have many avenues through which they can communicate with students. Of course, allowing them to use this forum would also allow students to call bullshit more easily.
I guess I'd also want to know more about why the administration would want to post here. Would it be a genuine attempt to solicit student feedback? Or would it be another forum for them to give us the same old b.s.? (I'm thinking, for example, about the recent issues with grading. Instead of transmitting the party line through an SBA rep, do they just want to post it here?)
So for clarification on my former post: NO F***ING WAY ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD RECEIVE CONTRIBUTOR STATUS. I really have no desire to read posts from them that state "Dear students, help me to help you... Professors can't work in snow in Colorado [but you sure can]. Employers will understand when you get your first semester grades in your third semester [and respond by hiring DU students]. Just grin and bear it, and it will all work out wonderfully [while I ignore you so that I may finish this article on the Mens Rea of stampeding cattle so that I may receive tenure and do less than I already do]" My CU inbox is already overflowing like a port-a-potty at the Alabama State Fair with crap like this. So please keep them out.
Just to play devil's advocate here, it might be an enlightening exercise to allow at least one admin post, perhaps as a test run. I'm even volunteering to post it, verbatim, in order to avoid the anonymity issues.
Think about it: we can all rip them a new one in the comments once they tried to defend the party line. Which could be really, really, really fun.
Thanks Unfrozen for stating my opinion so well!
The professor was one thing...I knew Wesson would ask a real question that would spark debate. I am not so sure about the Administration.
If the Administration wants to contribute, then address our issues head on. NOT SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THE FACT (SUCH AS WITH AN "OPEN FORUM" ABOUT THE GRADING ISSUE ON FEBRUARY 27TH...WEEKS AFTER FACT AND WITH NO FUTURE CHANGES THAT COULD EFFECT THE JOB HUNT).
sorry
Just no contributor access
I'm with NJL and HS. I think it would be interesting to get their input, but I don't like the idea of CU Law administrators having cublawg administrative access.
It's surprising that they would ask to contribute. I'm not sure they realize what they're asking for.
why don't you have them submit whatever it is that they want to say and hakim could post it on their behalf. that way, their views are here without giving them admin access. just a suggestion.
I am not sure what giving the "administration" contributor status really means. Who exactly wants to post? There are individual members of the administration DJ, DM, DG, etc.... Do they want to write some kind of manifesto together to then post or is a particular administrator interested in posting?
I think that any administrator should be encouraged to contribute on an issue individually when they have a specific issue to address. However, I am not comfortable with any member of the administration having the ability to freely contribute propaganda whenever they wish.
Maybe each member of the administration should be forced to submit sufficiently intelligent comments before being invited to contribute just like the rest of us.
I absolutely think that giving the admins contributor status is a very, very bad idea. If they want to post something via HS, fine. If they want to start an "official" CU law blog, fine. But admin power over this blog takes things a bit too far, I think. Don't get me wrong, there are people in the administration that I like and value, but there are also certain deans at our school that I wouldn't trust to water my plants while I was away for the weekend. In sum, less adminstration, more dick and fart jokes.
I like the idea. I don't see the Administration using this forum all that much, to be honest. The request for contributor status might have been in response to the re: Chewbacca Defense misunderstanding.
As for the identity issues, I don't think its even an issue. I see no difference in granting professors and administrators contributor status. I assume that everyone created an alias email address and took care of that risk before Mimi Wesson posted.
I like the idea. I don't see the Administration using this forum all that much, to be honest. The request for contributor status might have been in response to the re: Chewbacca Defense misunderstanding.
As for the identity issues, I don't think its even an issue. I see no difference in granting professors and administrators contributor status. I assume that everyone created an alias email address and took care of that risk before Mimi Wesson posted.
I think the value of this forum (whether we conceive of it as closed or open) is centered in two important characteristics: first, as a means of informal communication; second, in the general sense of relative 'good-will' (even when ticked and complaining or laughing hysterically at the words/antics/conditions of law school life). These are two characteristics I would hope continue as new contributors join.
Here is my "legal" concern (somebody should be proud, I'm actually trying to "think" like a lawyer!): would the participation of the administration in the bLawg lead observers (including participants) to conclude that the message of the bLawg is endorsed by the school? Would such a conclusion carry with it any right to control the content of the bLawg?
I guess I would be delighted to have professors and administrators participate along with all of us as fellow human beings having a common interest in living the CU Law experience. We've long known that some admins and profs are delighted lurkers (and thus have always been free to comment here, anonymously or no). But I would be hesitant to have contributors qua administrators (ie, in the role of somehow applying administration to the bLawg, as an extension of the CU "branding" or "PR" message, for example).
Why should the Administration care about the chewbacca defense misunderstanding? This isn't their blog, their property. It has been made clear that this blog has no official tie with the school.
If that is the case then NO, not even through HS. I didn't see them trying to explain away the grade issue, which is a bigger black eye then a misunderstanding over a several years-old South Park episode.
If the Admins want to post questions, then okay, but if they want to clear the air about something else, hell no!
There are two different settings for "contributors": administrators and guests. Some of us wield the sword of "administrators." We can edit the formatting of the blawg and do all sorts of magical blog-type stuff. We have deferred to HS' infinite wisdom on such matters (see the recent changes).
"Guests," on the other hand, have limited blawg powers. They can publish new posts and that's about it (as far as I can tell). Obviously, if an administrator were to post anything, it would be as a guest.
I changed the settings for comments to allow anonymous comments. If spam becomes a problem, then we'll reinstate the previous settings. I figured it would promote people who otherwise might be standing on the blawg sidelines.
This blog has become too self-conscious.
People debate 'what is law school, really?' and 'who has a valid reason to contribute?'
Blogs' lifespans are like bell curves.
Start out with some stupid stuff, it gets going as the writer loosens up and says things they shouldn't, people say 'wow, this is entertaining,' the blogger gets all high and mighty and starts trying to 'do something' with the blog, it dies a painful death.
this blog is plummeting back toward the x axis (or is it y?).
to resurrect? lose the cu logos, start trashing people who deserve it, talk about how drunk you were last week. mix in some 'do something' stuff.
my apologies for the rant, but this is getting painful
I don't agree with most of what the previous anonymous commenter said, but I'm also not a fan of the CU logo. At the very least, lose the picture of the building. It looks way too much like something from the front of a law school brochure.
Let's give the administration contributor status, but only if they let us post our ideas on their website . . . a simple note to prospective students about the inability to get grades in a timely fashion, or the administration's utter failure to take any responsibility for this debacle (or, god forbid, to even fix it) might be enough to scare away a few students.
I echo NotJustLaw's comment about the totally unacceptable "resolution" of this problem vis-a-vis a brownbag lunch two weeks late . . . We don't need another lecture about how hard it is to run a law school (especially when it's snowing); we need resolution of this problem, which appears beyond the ken of the current administrators.
Allow me to clarify a few matters:
1) Admin privileges will always remain with a select group of students because there's simply no way we'd ever let this become another mouthpeice of the Dean's office--the listservs, TWEN, kiosks, website, and SBA already serve that function pretty well. BTW, did you hear LT needs people for his marriachi band again? I know I sure did...
2) The Administrative request was for contributor-level access only, in order to respond to the post on Friday classes. Why that couldn't occur through the comments is beyond me, but there you have it.
3) If you don't like the logo or design, then I have a little blawg to show you that parodies them.
4) If you don't like the content, then create an ID, say something reasonably entertaining in the comments, and I'll add you as a contributor. But if all you can do is criticize management, well then I suggest you start your own blawg called administrators-of-cublawg-about-cu-administrators-sux.blogspot.com.
Deadspin this is not... Time for some levity.. A bear and a rabbit were taking a shit in the forest. The bear turns to the rabbit and says, "Do you have problems with shit sticking to your fur?" The rabbitt says no, so the bear wipes his ass with the rabbit.
-Academy Award Nominee Eddie Murphy
Why not let the admin join? If it becomes a problem, then revoke their privilege.
I saw the SP with the Chewbacca defense, but what happened with that re: the administration? Did someone call Dean Getches a wookie?
No to administration contributor status. Let them respond to posts like everyone else, and identify themselves as the administration, if they so please. Giving them control in this forum (even if it's just access to some contributors' email addresses, and the ability to post new threads) is a bad idea. HS can post for them, but don't let them in the inner circle. (Maybe they don't understand the blog at all, and don't realize then can just respond to posts. Maybe their request for "contributor" status was a semantic mistake, and they were just asking our opinion about responding to some posts. It's strange that none of them have responded to any of this discussion, even in an unofficial post. I guess they're all busy with their Friday classes.)
You're doing a great job HS, and this blog is neither too serious, nor too "official" looking. If too serious, people can always post whatever they want--including rabbit jokes or poetry.
I for one am REALLY CURIOUS to see what the admin comes up with...
Will they prove to have a human side most of us doubt is there?
Or will they prove once and for all that they are completely and sickeningly out of touch with the student body?
More than anything, I just can't believe they would be willing to open themselves up to the ridicule that will undoubtedly follow from allowing the students a completely anonymous forum to take shots at them.
If they really think that will go well, then they are more arrogant than I thought...
Oh the entertainment value!
Agreed, Anonymous—it would be fun to take a few free shots at the administration, at least in a forum in which the threat of retaliation (academically, and professionally) is minimized. I wonder if they’re rethinking their request to contribute, and that’s why we haven’t heard from them. I bet the authoritarian impulse was just excited by the Friday class / “Chewbacca defense” post, and the knee jerk reaction was to squash some dissent / identify & blacklist the dissenters. Now that the administration realizes that’s not going to happen, maybe they’re backing off on their request because they don’t actually any have good arguments to back up their quixotic Friday class plan, or to excuse their gross negligence in failing to get us grades in a timely manner.
Did you catch the Marnie email on Friday classes? Typical. The administration backed off the Friday class plan, but refused to acknowledge that it was a bad idea to begin with, or even that they were shelving the idea indefinitely. Instead, “The committee has decided to consider this matter further, but to continue with only 1L classes on Fridays for Fall, 2007.”
WTF? Why not just acknowledge that it was a bad idea, and was accordingly dropped? Everyone would respect this administration more if it communicated in an open manner, and not like some calculating politician thinking about his election three terms out:
“Dear Students,
After receiving input from your SBA representatives, student surveys, and certain alternative media outlets, we have decided to shelve the idea of Friday classes to allow you time to pursue your professional and personal pursuits outside of school. We were surprised and impressed to learn how many of you are representing the CU Law community through externships and jobs, and we’re proud to support you in this endeavor.
Good luck,
The CU Law Administration”
I know that at least one person in the dean's office has stated that they had to answer personally to the ABA re: our lack of Friday classes.
For what it's worth. And no, I'm not an admin. I just heard the admin in question talking about it during one of my classes. It's hard to believe that this person didn't give the ABA a little push-back, especially if the rules are squishy, but maybe that's not done?? Eh, I have no idea.
I'm just curious, but can anybody tell me why the hell the ABA cares about Friday classes? Is the ABA as apt to try and plan our schedules for us as the Dean's office? Sometimes I feel like I'm in high school all over again.
It seems that as long as we are doing our work and meeting our credit requirements for graduation, there should be no problem.
Post a Comment