SCREEN-L Archives

February 1995, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 7 Feb 1995 16:46:57 CST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (26 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
RE: Dr. Hargrove's personal insult. The information requested by Senator
Pressler was routine EEOC information required of most all federal agencies
to determine if there were discriminatory practices. Indeed, when I got my
teaching jobs at UCLA and Cal State LA I had to fill out forms with similar
information "for statistical purposes." Dr. Hargrove can probably find the
information he wants on file at those institutions.
As for political contributions, as a result of campaign finance reform
championed by Common Cause, all donations over $200 are matters of public
record, found in the public files maintained here in Washington, DC by the
Federal Election Commission. There is no right to privacy in this regard
anymore.  It was a "liberal" election law reform passed by a Democratic
Congress, not Joe McCarthy.
Since I don't work for Dr. Hargrove and receive a salary from a private
party, I'm under no obligation to answer his questions. On the other hand,
everyone who works for public broadcasting is supported by the American
taxpayer. The public/private distinction is crucial to understanding this
entire debate over the federal role in public broadcasting. Privacy applies
to the private sector, public servants have to be accountable to elected
Congress has the right and the duty to oversee the expenditure of tax dollars
in public broadcasting as it does with the Defense Department or any other
Larry Jarvik