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 |