On Mon, 12 Dec 1994 08:58:49 CST Larry Jarvik said:
>I would appreciate receiving, via private email if not in the public
>postings, the putative intellectual justification of the SCREEN-L editor for
>admitting this posting. Precisely which scholarly criteria did this prop. 187
>posting supposedly meet in relation to the study of film and television?
 
I hesitated about this one for quite a while, Larry.
 
My general policy about moderating/editing has been to be lenient.  If
something seems borderline, I let it through rather than squashing it.
I figure the moderator who moderates least, moderates best.
 
And I do feel that the Prop 187 issue relates to SCREEN-L because of the
possible impact upon some of the nation's most important film/TV
schools.  Many of SCREEN-L's subscribers are educators and students
and Prop 187 may directly/indirectly affect their studies.
 
SCREEN-L is not just for the theory/history/production of film/TV, it's
also for the discussion of film/TV pedagogy.
 
And the pedagogical is always the political.
 
Sometimes the affect of politics on film/TV teaching is clearer
than in the case of Prop 187.  (Such is the situation in Iowa with the
recent controversy involving what may/may not be screened in classes.)
This was why I hesitated in this instance.
 
I don't feel that SCREEN-L should spend a lot of time discussing
Prop 187, but I believe it is a valid use of SCREEN-L to raise the
subject.
 
----------
          Politeness is organized indifference.
                                       --Paul Valery
----------
 
| Jeremy Butler - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [log in to unmask] |
| SCREEN-L Coordinator                                                   |
| Telecommunication & Film Dept * The University of Alabama * Tuscaloosa |