- Joined
- Mar 15, 2000
- Messages
- 576
- Reaction score
- 2
This is just a post wrapping up a short stay on this bulletin service.
Wanted to get everyone caught up on the latest happenings.
I received an Email from the Dean (on Thursday) requesting we meet to discuss areas of mutual concern.
We met this afternoon.
This is the first meeting I have had with Dr. Silvagni other than bumping into him without introduction twice. In any case this was the first focused conversation between us. He had recieved a letter stating that a certain M4 had been expressing his extreme displeasure regarding reports of alleged censorship issues and so the Dean wanted to see exactly what this was all about. Also present was Larry Newbree who is in charge of Student Services.
Dean Silvagni was shocked to hear that some students felt his comments were meant to censor them, and expressed passionately yet professionally his displeasure at these students and myself at not coming to him with our concerns. He also ensured me that he has no intention of censoring anyone's expression of free speech. He did state that lying does not come under free speech.
This should be an area of agreement for all.
The bottom line is: there is no reason to be paranoid regarding expressing your opinions about Nova or anyone at Nova, so long as you do not lie about things. This isn't a grey area although some folks might think so.
for instance: If I state that "THE PRISON ROTATION IS JUST GOING TO BE US STUDENTS DOING ALL THE RECTAL AND PROSTATE EXAMS!"
that constitutes a lie because it is a statement AS FACT which is not necessarily so and is without foundation in research. In making such a statement I assume knowledge that I do not possess and this is dishonest. However, the same statement written as a question is not dishonest:
"WHAT IF THE PRISON ROTATION ENDS UP WITH US JUST DOING LOTS OF RECTALS?" This is an honest expression of concern, and while he would prefer you discuss your concerns openly with him first, there is no dishonesty of intent and thus no violation of the honor code.
Similarly if someone asks you about Nova and you say "I wouldn't go there again until they change this and that and this?" that is an honest opinion (hopefully) and he might disagree with your opinion but would not try to squelch your expression. His quote (as near as I can remember it was: "If you can't exchange ideas freely at an institution of higher learning, where can you?"
Having said this, many might wonder why I wouldn't have approached him personally myself, and I would answer that question with a question: If this were any other type of an issue other than censorship, I would have approached him right away, but censorship is a bit more tricky, because with censorship questions, you must move out of the realm of assuming there will be reasonable discourse and into the realm of wondering, "is this possible and if so is this person unreasonable or has he been misquoted?" Censorship questions uniquely raise the DIRECT possibility of retribution based upon vocalization. It is unfortunately more important in this case for people to open the door to everyone that the possibility of censorship exists prior to approaching the party being accused of this action. Two things are hopefully ensured in this tactic: It reduces the chances that the person doing all the postings is a sycophant, while ensuring that if retribution were to occur a clear portrait of events is present for all to see. In short, this approach is the only way to fully expose the true nature of what really happened to all, leaving little legimate questioning of the final outcome.
Where does that leave us?
To me it begs several questions:
1. As you recall, I strongly urged incoming students to research and consider the source of all information they recieve.
On this forum, only quinn (the most reasonable of us) ever raised the issue of who my sources were. There were people claiming I was disgruntled, but they missed the mark because they wanted to kill the messenger instead of critically evaluating the facts. Regardless of whether you are a blind lover of your school, or a paranoid administration hater, or hopefully, within two standard deviations of normal conduct, if you fail to consider your sources you will jump to conclusions that are so obviously wrong that only you will miss them.
In closing, I would remind you that I still possess strong feelings regarding many areas at Nova that need improvement (in my opinion) but these are my personal issues and being not related to censorship I have no intention of openly threshing these out, to do so would only be a false egotistical display when these issues need to be worked out in private.
So to close: Please do not be a paranoid person determined to find evil intent behind every bad test score, look for the issues that truly affect the quality of your education and your medical development and work hard and focus intensely upon these issues, you will be rewarded (often not immediately nor completely). Conversely, please do not be one of those complacent sheep that just stays quiet and gets by, this (in my opinion) is an area of great tragedy, the uninvolved person living under the false motto "don't burn bridges" instead of the true motto: "research your bridges carefully, then burn the ones that are beyond reasonable repair."
The road you take today does not have to be the one you take tomorrow.
Wanted to get everyone caught up on the latest happenings.
I received an Email from the Dean (on Thursday) requesting we meet to discuss areas of mutual concern.
We met this afternoon.
This is the first meeting I have had with Dr. Silvagni other than bumping into him without introduction twice. In any case this was the first focused conversation between us. He had recieved a letter stating that a certain M4 had been expressing his extreme displeasure regarding reports of alleged censorship issues and so the Dean wanted to see exactly what this was all about. Also present was Larry Newbree who is in charge of Student Services.
Dean Silvagni was shocked to hear that some students felt his comments were meant to censor them, and expressed passionately yet professionally his displeasure at these students and myself at not coming to him with our concerns. He also ensured me that he has no intention of censoring anyone's expression of free speech. He did state that lying does not come under free speech.
This should be an area of agreement for all.
The bottom line is: there is no reason to be paranoid regarding expressing your opinions about Nova or anyone at Nova, so long as you do not lie about things. This isn't a grey area although some folks might think so.
for instance: If I state that "THE PRISON ROTATION IS JUST GOING TO BE US STUDENTS DOING ALL THE RECTAL AND PROSTATE EXAMS!"
that constitutes a lie because it is a statement AS FACT which is not necessarily so and is without foundation in research. In making such a statement I assume knowledge that I do not possess and this is dishonest. However, the same statement written as a question is not dishonest:
"WHAT IF THE PRISON ROTATION ENDS UP WITH US JUST DOING LOTS OF RECTALS?" This is an honest expression of concern, and while he would prefer you discuss your concerns openly with him first, there is no dishonesty of intent and thus no violation of the honor code.
Similarly if someone asks you about Nova and you say "I wouldn't go there again until they change this and that and this?" that is an honest opinion (hopefully) and he might disagree with your opinion but would not try to squelch your expression. His quote (as near as I can remember it was: "If you can't exchange ideas freely at an institution of higher learning, where can you?"
Having said this, many might wonder why I wouldn't have approached him personally myself, and I would answer that question with a question: If this were any other type of an issue other than censorship, I would have approached him right away, but censorship is a bit more tricky, because with censorship questions, you must move out of the realm of assuming there will be reasonable discourse and into the realm of wondering, "is this possible and if so is this person unreasonable or has he been misquoted?" Censorship questions uniquely raise the DIRECT possibility of retribution based upon vocalization. It is unfortunately more important in this case for people to open the door to everyone that the possibility of censorship exists prior to approaching the party being accused of this action. Two things are hopefully ensured in this tactic: It reduces the chances that the person doing all the postings is a sycophant, while ensuring that if retribution were to occur a clear portrait of events is present for all to see. In short, this approach is the only way to fully expose the true nature of what really happened to all, leaving little legimate questioning of the final outcome.
Where does that leave us?
To me it begs several questions:
1. As you recall, I strongly urged incoming students to research and consider the source of all information they recieve.
On this forum, only quinn (the most reasonable of us) ever raised the issue of who my sources were. There were people claiming I was disgruntled, but they missed the mark because they wanted to kill the messenger instead of critically evaluating the facts. Regardless of whether you are a blind lover of your school, or a paranoid administration hater, or hopefully, within two standard deviations of normal conduct, if you fail to consider your sources you will jump to conclusions that are so obviously wrong that only you will miss them.
In closing, I would remind you that I still possess strong feelings regarding many areas at Nova that need improvement (in my opinion) but these are my personal issues and being not related to censorship I have no intention of openly threshing these out, to do so would only be a false egotistical display when these issues need to be worked out in private.
So to close: Please do not be a paranoid person determined to find evil intent behind every bad test score, look for the issues that truly affect the quality of your education and your medical development and work hard and focus intensely upon these issues, you will be rewarded (often not immediately nor completely). Conversely, please do not be one of those complacent sheep that just stays quiet and gets by, this (in my opinion) is an area of great tragedy, the uninvolved person living under the false motto "don't burn bridges" instead of the true motto: "research your bridges carefully, then burn the ones that are beyond reasonable repair."
The road you take today does not have to be the one you take tomorrow.
