Millot: Sound Decision or Censorship at TWIE (V)
-Marc Dean Millot:
This last post is not about This Week in Education editor Alexander Russo’s decision to pull “Three Data Points. Unconnected Dots or a Warning” because Andrew Rotherham suggested a colleague at Scholastic should make it so. It’s simply a list of my reflections on reactions to this series.
Thank You. I must thank five independent educator-bloggers who offered their hands in friendship for open debate. My posts can be found at Jim Horn’s Schools Matter, Norm Scott’s EdNotes Online, The Frustrated Teacher, Tom Hoffman’s Tuttle SVC, and here at Borderland. The complete record resides at TFT. I could not have responded as quickly or broadly if they had not lent me their platforms and credibility with their readers – and done so even though we disagree on some important policy matters. They are the ones who took risks.
Now that this series is ended, I will end my guest column status on their sites and return to the school reform blogosphere sometime in the future. In the meantime you will undoubtedly see a few of my comments on others’ sites.
Effect. Convincing these unknown colleagues to borrow their blogs offered me a quick response to Russo’s decision and Rotherham’s blog posting. One upside of the “five-blog” strategy was the potential to reach a larger audience. The downside might have been that it was harder to follow the series, yet most of my colleagues reported higher than normal traffic when I posted on their sites.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I had hoped to generate some interest in the mainstream education media. Diane Ravitich and Anthony Cody did post on their blogs in edweek.org, but I have no reason to believe the national media is interested. If you think they should be, let you favorite education reporter know. Reader suggestions can have influence.
Silence. Before I go deeper into the blogosphere’s reactions, readers have probably noticed that neither Russo nor Rotherham recognized any of my posts on their blogs, or any blog. For both it was probably the best “communications” strategy. From their perspective, any response would simply add fuel to the fire and keep the story going. Neither has a credible rejoinder on the merits, and the blogger’s usual knee-jerk reaction – the snide remark, was unlikely to go over well. Accepting responsibility and fault was never in the cards.
However, we do know that someone with Education Sector has spent hours reading my series – see here and here, so ignorance is not a valid plea for Rotherham.
General Trend of Comments. When I had edbizbuzz.com on edweek.org I found that: comments were made by a tiny proportion of readers, opponents were far more likely to comment than “allies,” a good portion of negative comments were ad hominem, and that edwonks who might be the targets of my posts were well-defended by their “blogroupies.”
This was the opposite experience: a much higher ratio of commentators to readers, more vociferous agreement than disagreement, ad hominem attacks directed against Russo or Rotherham, and no comments from either’s entourage. My guess is more “destination readers” followed the series than might follow a typical site.
Russo and Rotherham: Both have had several years of non-stop edublogging; plenty of time to make friends and enemies. No one expressed great admiration for Russo, but there were few real attacks on him. Rotherham was a different story; he has a great many detractors. There are the usual suspects, like the Klonsky brothers, but quite a few people who do not blog expressed similar sentiments.
Conspiracies. The series definitely became fodder for those inclined towards conspiracies around Scholastic, the Gates Foundation and for-profit education. As I’ve written before I’m not inclined in this direction because I don’t think people are sufficiently disciplined.
I would say that Scholastic was the unwitting accomplice of a friend or colleague of Andrew Rotherham – no executive of any standing had anything to do with ordering Russo to pull the post. Maybe someday I’ll remember or figure out the guy’s name.
As for Gates, New Schools, their grantees, EdSector etc., my own experience with very large nonprofits is that senior staff can leverage their organizations in ways their presidents and boards can’t dream of. Instead, see a network of people – Shelton, Smith, Rotherham etc., with a similarly focused view of school reform from a similar subculture of philanthropy, similarly invested – psychologically or otherwise – in a specific group of grantees, working towards the same ends. It’s not a conspiracy so much as an open secret. They’ve never hidden themselves from the public, they’ve spent a decade daring people to challenge their positions. They are a case of emperors wearing no clothes.
Finally there is nothing like a coherent “for profit education industry.” It’s kind of like talking about the “United Nations.” The industry is divided at least between the multinational publishers, their local consultants and everybody else selling products, services and program. The first two groups want no change to the status quo and would be happy to repeal NCLB. The few, mostly weak, trade groups have badly fractionated the broader industry’s Washington presence. And within any segment of the industry there are literally hundreds of small for- and nonprofit organizations motivated by every force known to man.
Very few in the for-profit world are interested in running public schools – it’s a very unprofitable business. Having reviewed the economics of both the charter management and teacher training businesses, I would say the new philanthropy actually wants to push the burden of their own subsidies onto the government, via RTTT and I3. Finally, there’s just not a lot of exchange going on between the for-profits and the nonprofit represented by the naked aristocracy. Sure it exists, but its not very likely that anyone at for-profit Scientific Learning knows anyone at nonprofit KIPP knows anyone at for-profit University Instructors knows anyone at nonprofit Success for All knows anyone at Scientific Learning. With a foot in both worlds, I can say they are two different worlds and cultures – although they share the fee-for-service revenue model.
Hearsay. I did not explain the term in my first post because there was enough jargon as it was and, although I am a lawyer, I felt I could make my point without still more. But as reactions to the series progressed Rotherham’s post demonstrated the risks policy wonks face when they forget the limits of their expertise by managing to confuse a lot of readers. What follows is the best, simple discussion on point that I found online http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h007.htm :
[A] statement introduced to prove something other than its truth is not hearsay. For example, testimony may be offered to show the speaker’s state of mind.
Example: Dana and Bruce were fighting, and Dana shouted “Bruce, you are a lousy bastard.” Marla heard the argument and was asked to testify at Dana and Bruce’s divorce trial. Marla was permitted to repeat the statement “Bruce, you are a lousy bastard,” because it is not hearsay. It was not introduced at the trial to prove that Bruce has lice or is an illegitimate child, but rather to show that Dana was angry.
What I wrote was not hearsay at all. I introduced the information, not to prove “the fix is in,” but to show the state of mind of people interested in the RTTT and I3 grants program. If Rotherham, or maybe his contact at Scholastic, had looked the term up in a dictionary and reflected on its application to my column, you probably would not reading this post.
Censorship. There also seems to be some confusion about this word. At least one commentator suggested that Russo’s decision was not censorship. It was not “government” censorship, which is how most people think of the term. After reviewing various dictionaries on the web, Wikipedia offers a fair summary of its meaning:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.
Readers can decide who the censor was: Rotherham, the Scholastic employee, or Russo. The net result was censorship.
Millot. No great opposition to me, actually a great deal of personal support. Some commentators had a very hard time accepting that I’m pro-market. Frankly, I think there is more common ground between those who share my view of a school improvement market and teachers than many educators believe. This would be a useful area for discussion and at least one blogger – Anthony Cody, has extended an invitation to have such a dialogue. We shall see.
Other complaints included too much detail, too much legalese, talking too much about me, and my use of the Millot-Russo email record.
Without going on and on (any more), some quick responses: The detail, legalese and autobiography were deliberate choices. I did not want to engage in a running, sniping, indecisive blog battle. Short items leave too many openings for misleading counterargument. I decided to take “one bite at the apple” with each segment of my argument; I wanted readers to have all the facts relevant to making up their own minds. Printing the email transcript was the hardest decision, but absent it, this would all be “he said, she said.” Russo’s termination of the contract without public explanation left me no choice, and he never disputed the record.
Would I do this again? Absolutely. And if you ever face the decision to sit this out or dance – I hope you’ll dance.
I still maintain it was not technically censorship, because it’s a privately run blog that stifled speech in its own forum. I have the right to ban speech that offends me in my living room, whether it’s my teens’ using profanity or a low-class visitor making anti-gay comments, and Scholastic has the right to ban speech it doesn’t like for whatever reason on its own blog — and that’s not censorship. However, it is the stifling of free expression, and I think it reflects damningly on the ed-reform advocates that they are so eager to stifle criticism. And it will come back to bite them.
Agreed. We are left to wonder about who is calling the shots, and why anyone would be so overly-sensitive.
I had not intended to get into a technical argument, but words do matter, this is an audience of teachers, and I want to be clear on the concept…. so here goes Millot, Esq. J.D. GW Law 1994 VA bar 1994.
Censorship has at least two meanings and possibly three.
First we have the non-technical, definition relating to general English usage, listed in a standard English dictionary.
First, consider Webster’s definition of the verb “censor”:
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
Anyone with a red pen and a sheet of text can censor words.
See “censorship” from that same source:
Main Entry: cen·sor·ship
Function: noun
Date: circa 1591
1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor
3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor
Dictionaries list the most common definition of a word first. In this case the practice of censoring.
Note that in neither case is the meaning confined to a government function or activity. We are all able to practice censorship.
The second, more narrowly tailored technical usage is “government censorship.” which relates to censorship conducted by government. If you are arguing against this in court or in a legal brief, you’ll eventually shorten to “censorship” and everyone in court or reading the brief will know what you are talking about. In the United States it’s Government actions infringing n citizens rights to freedom of expression under the First Amendment.
See for example the ACLUs discussion here:
http://www.aclufl.org/take_action/download_resources/info_papers/10.cfm
As this exchange suggests, the contraction – while useful between lawyers, can lead to more general confusion about the meaning. Caroline SF for example assumes that only government is capable of censorship. This is a conflation of everyday English and American legalese.
In fact we are all capable of censorship, but only government is forced to justify it in court.
Why is this important? The underlying meaning of censorship is the removal of something objectionable to the censor – for whatever reason. You can take government to court when it is the censor, and that’s a powerful weapon for free speech. But as those of us who have published blogs know, a few outlets/channels/sites capture most of the potential audience, and those who control those sites answer to no one for their censorship, and that censorship has important implications for public discourse and democratic action.
Anyone interested in power can understand that calling it “censorship” has an important rhetorical punch lacking when the act is described as “not wanting it in my living room.” And given that the dictionary endorses calling it censorship, I see no reason why we should mince words. Why let the powerful determine the terms of debate, why accept a narrowing of the definition favorable to the powerful, when at least 400 years of the English language leave the power of this word with us?
As long as I’m into the legal end of this, I’ll throw another factor into the mix. I had complete editorial control over my posts under my contract with Russo. Scholastic was in the public domain stating Russo had complete editorial control. In so far as I and the world were concerned, Based on what Scholastic executives said in public (See me email exchange with Russo) and did not say in public we had no reason to believe Russo could not offer me a contract with such freedom. Under common law principles of agency, Scholastic is bound by my contract with Russo. It’s not worth a $200 month contract to fight it out, but the principle is worth remembering.
Mr. Millot.
<>
What precisely am I suspected of?
-Fred Klonsky
Mr. Fred Klonsky:
Nothing more serious than being one of many in the edu-blogosphere who have long had a low opinion of Rotherham and/or Russo and express it. It’s no crime.
I only mentioned it because readers may have expected it in this case, and it seemed to me that the news is that others who haven’t commented on one or both of the two in the past did as well. That is, more than the usual suspects weighed in this time.
No offense intended, just a recognition that folks might discount your critique.
Hmmm. No offense intended, but what “folks” is that, I wonder?
Mr. Mike Klonsky
“Folks” who haven’t made up their minds one way or the other on my series of posts. I have a dog in the fight, Russo and Rotherham would be defending themselves, and given your views on the two, you might not be considered entirely disinterested.
In that case, these “folks” might reasonably give added weight to the opinion of others who have not been part of the on-line debate before now.
What nerve have I inadvertantly hit here? There’s nothing more to my remark than a lawyer’s perspective on the mechanics of persuasion.
I get it Marc. Your a lawyer. Some folks may discount your views based on that fact.
The nerve you hit is that the term “usual suspects” is used to marginalize a point of view. Surely as a lawyer well versed in the use of persuasive language, you are aware of that. I mean, you’re a lawyer, right?
It was an odd thing to do considering I reported on your differences with Russo and Rotherham by mainly reprinting and then linking to your accounts with very little commentary of my own.
I guess some people just won’t take yes for an answer.
I’m over it now. I’m moving on.
Fred:
You seem to be asking”what do your really think of me?”
My guess is that many readers would consider me one of “the usual suspects” when it comes to Andrew Rotherham; I have sent readers to my many critiques repeatedly. I’m sure that some will discount my opinions because I’m a lawyer, pro-market and have no classroom experience (well, I was a TA in college).
That’s ok, people should make up their minds about my fact-based arguments knowing everything they can about me. I’ve been very clear about my history and have repeatedly told readers to Google “Marc Dean Millot” for more. I can’t very well be upset with that fact while arguing that readers should be fully informed of the various interests and relationships around RTTT and I3.
I don’t know if “the usual suspects” marginalizes the subjects or not. In Casablanca, the phrase is used by Captain Renault to suggests they have nothing to do with the merits of the case, but are the kind of people who occupy the relevant demimonde. I’d say you occupy the small world of blog criticism around Russo and Rotherham, wouldn’t you? Like me, you are a usual suspect.
I believe the merits of the case against Russo and Rotherham is what is important here. However, I am not naive – the “priors” of people who join in on my side matter to where the disinterested observers comes out. In the end, I’m not part of any club that will have me, and I’m less interested in preaching to some choir than in persuading this middle.
In this respect, because you can be counted on to come out against the two, your opinion has to be discounted. I have to say so, unless I would like to be painted as part of your club, and see my arguments characterized as such. I think I’m better off persuading this middle if If I adopt a strategy of distancing myself from your take, an approach which has the added rhetorical advantage of being true.
There’s nothing personal here. Nor do I disrespect your position. I think I understand something of why so many educators are upset with market-based reforms – teachers have been disrespected by their employers for so long, are now seeing this new new thing shoved down their throats by those same employers, and the capacity (however defined) of so many private for and nonprofit providers is far short of their reach. Nor do I fail to welcome your support. But my main objective here is not making you feel happy or comfortable.
I have been trying for a decade to make an objective, fact-based case about what I’ve called the social keiretsu. I know the edu-blogosphere has become an outlet for those deprived access to traditional media and decision channels. Unfortunately, too much of this potentially powerful medium has been taken up by discourse somewhere between “snark” and ad hominen attacks.
I’m sorry to say that you have contributed to making the media more like bad talk radio than NPR. I can’t say I’ve every read any post from you that took the time to make a solid argument against Rotherham or Russo.
It is somewhat hypocritical to focus on my use of “the usual suspects” and imply that I might intend to marginalize you, when you are one of the few edu-bloggers with the social history and teaching experience to make a substantive contribution to the debate, but have wasted the opportunity to educate your audience with mere sniping.
To be specific, you’ve marginalized yourself. You may have the satisfaction of the wiseacre in the back of the classroom, cracking jokes about the teacher. Your audience may get a certain relief from their oppression. But like the wiseacre, you wont take the time to make a positive contribution for change. Indeed, you have help your oppressor by turning a potentially useful means of political leverage into a joke. In the meanwhile, you’ve helped Rotherham and Russo to become the middle of the roads preferred channel.
If you don’t want to have the sense that others might think you are marginal, you might think about what you can write that won’t leave you on the margins.
This is not intended to be mean. I think you could do more for your audience if you got out of the intellectual gutter.