What I provided in my past blogs about Gallaudet University are mostly in the form of facts and figures along with some opinions. Go ahead and type in "Gallaudet" in the search box in the left column of my blog page (scroll down until you see it) and you'll find all the blogs I wrote that have the word "Gallaudet" in them over the years. Naturally I'll discuss issues pertaining to Gallaudet University since I graduated from there. I do have opinions and valid concerns regarding Gallaudet University, after all, I am an alumnus which makes me a representative of Gallaudet University.
Better get used to that idea.
What's rather curious in my observation is that some people seem to prefer to see such data or information not be publicly exposed or discussed further when it comes to issues or things related to Gallaudet University. Why is that? What is exactly the message being sent out there in the effort to silence such criticisms? That any criticism of Gallaudet University is off-limit? If that's the case then rape at universities or colleges, specifically Gallaudet University, shouldn't be discussed based on facts and figures as if rapes never occurred? Isn't that a rather cold and heartless thinking? Behind all those rape numbers is a human being and not some faceless statistic. And what about discussing at length why Buff and Blue choose to keep quiet (it's been three months and counting....) the removal of the Wirick article rather than make a public declaration on explaining to the readers the reason for the removal? Sounds like a preference to keep things mum and out of the light as much as possible.
No, Patti. It's not trashing.
I have my own POV and I look at things differently. Aren't alternative viewpoints great?! Although what's rather a curious thing to witness about the claims of "trashing" is when Patti wrote out "Kokonutty" in reference to me and my blog. Even though I've always made the effort to call people by their names correctly as well as the names of their blogsites without the need for colorful, euphemistic name calling. What's the point of doing that anyway? Patti, you do know that my name is "Mike" and that my blog is "Kokonut Pundit" and not "Kokonutty," right?
for those of u who have not been properly introduced to the Kokonutty pundit – no loss. enjoy living in the real world and count ur blessingsNot only once, but twice (technically so) the name "Kokonutty" was used by the same person. Must be an example of that infectious "love" and "peace" thing going around, no? Can't say "Agree to disagree"? Or is this a bitter tea we're talking about? And isn't calling me as "Kokonutty" getting a tad bit too emotional and personal? Isn't the above an example of personal trashing? Is that good?
Me think not.
Nay am I the naysayer. Nay, I say! Nay! Nay! Seriously, just think of it as a POV instead and you'll live a happier, healthier life! Gotta save that stomach from getting ulcers, right?
People can have opinions about other people whether it's positive or negative and be firm about it. Sure. I've no qualms about that. Although I question the wisdom on turning it into a personal thing looking more vendetta-like than not. But, seriously, how hard can it be to address a person by his or her name or the name of the person's blog without any trailing name callings in its wake using colorful, euphemistic connotations? If it were me I'd get away from using my blogs as an emotional platform by targeting people the things I do not agree with.
22 comments:
Buff and Blue, of course, would mum on the rapes. Thats because they have the Blue Pillow section that encourages sex.
Mike,
You're the professional blogger who never name names and make the new nickname for anyone. She does not understand how the devil's advocate works. She does not know how to use and play the devil's advocate.
If she calls you Kokonutty, then, she is not truly a professional blogger.
It's okay for you to use Austin Powers/Dr.Evil for a particular reason. You need to get some laughs. We all need some laughs, too. Is what the entertainment is all about?
Like it or not, this is America we are living in..... ;-)
Exactly what is a "professional blogger"? What exactly are the expectations?
RR,
I don't think that'd be a good correlation. It'd be great if BB actually do some serious investigative journalism covering serious (even taboo-like) issues at Gallaudet. Best they can do is talk about the Wirick case.
Mike..
Nah, not trashing. Neither is pointing out to facts or expressing an opinion on other topics such as dh, and AB2072, for example. Gallaudet has its pluses and minuses. Like you, I attended Gallaudet and unlike you, I never graduated. Still, I am an alumnus and I do have this warm feeling about Gallaudet - especially when I set foot on campus because it was part of my life for two years plus two summers. Not to mention that I was a grounds keeper, worked 20 hours a week on campus for a year. I know the grounds by heart. To protect the institution is like protecting and enabling a drug user, a rapist, or even a bully.
It's not any different from a parent who bring up issues to try and discuss it with their child. For, if they didn't bring it up, it would indicate that they don't care. You cared about what was going on at Gallaudet with the rapes, bullying and the alledged segregation suggestion, among other things.
Patti and I had a discussion in Facebook under Karen Maye's FB status regarding karen being disgusted at the climate in the cyberspace. I pointed out to her that one only has to look at the history within deaf cyberspace the past three years to really acknowledge who the instigators were/are. The instigators within the deaf cyberspace are typical folks who get angry when someone vlogs or blogs about any issues in which THEY do not agree with. The instigators typically attack on a personal level, they side step the topic at hand and they go for character slugging. For example, Patti calls you a kokonutty instead of blogging on why she disagrees and if she is lucky, she might throw in facts with links. Focus on the topic. First off, you obviously are not the topic. Obviously Patti refuses to look at the topic itself but, she chose to look at WHO wrote that topic and targetted you.
You are not the first to even bring this up. This has been going on for so long, you'd think by now and especially Patti a Professor of Rochester Institute of Technology / National Technology Institute of the Deaf is behaving like that - is shameful.
People can have opinions, Damn right.
And anyone that has opinions and share them whether they include facts or not - should not have to be threatened. Patti Durr was part of the email group that went after me last summer all because I had an opinion that AB2072 was a good bill. Patti Durr only apologized because she got caught! She ain't no better than any of the folks that attacked me and if she did tell the email group that it was wrong, she should have stopped them by blogging about what the group was going to do. In short, Patti Durr has no integrity. None at all.
Sorry for the long one...
Patti' a teacher at NTID? I didn't know that. Interesting.
I believe she is a teacher within the Department of Cultural and Creative Studies. I wonder how she reacts to students who advocates for CI? I know NTID has lots of students with CI.
There is one video here and at 1:43, you can see Patti who look like she is scolding someone. lol Too funny. On a serious side, I honestly think we're all old enough to really refrain from name callings and learn to agree to disagree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHCjYr4cZ_s
I am sorry but I feel that it is a mistake to bring Ms. Patti Durr's job into the discussion. She does a good job in compartmentalizing her work and her personal life. So are many other bloggers and vloggers who work as teacher or professor in their job. There may be an issue of the appearance of impropriety but given that it is highly subjective and means different things to different people, it is not a reliable rule that I could personally use.
I won't lie that I wondered sometimes how these bloggers and vloggers including Ms. Durr would treat me if I were a student in their class. But, speculations are prone to errors and are notoriously unreliable. I will assume that they will adhere to the highest standards of professional behavior and relationship toward me and other students in their class. I may be too naïve but until there are concrete, irrefutable evidences to show otherwise, I will assume for the best.
It is not easy for me to write this comment but saying nothing seems not an option for me at this moment.
I welcome clarification and criticism.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
JPR..
My comment above has nothing to do with whether she is a good teacher or not. I don't know whether she is or not. Her behavior reflects poor judgment on her part.
Her behavior and the way she treats people online by getting personal rather than focusing on the topic does not reflect professionalism.
Can you imagine a professor of yours doing exactly what Patti does to students or parents in a forum or even in areas of similar topics of interest such as deaf cyberspace?
While it may be that she keeps these two separate. I just find it beyond abhorrible for a professor to be conducting her behavior online in the manner that she has. If I were working in a deaf related field and hold position that involves being a role model (students looking up to their teachers), I would be careful how I treat others. Which is why one should never get personal. If Patti had disagreed, that would have been no problem.
This is not about how well Patti teaches. It is all about her integrity and how she carries herself online.
And, to be clear, I have NO intention of contacting her employer. I don't think that is appropriate and I don't think it is right. If I know someone is going to be doing that, you bet, I will be objecting to it online in an attempt to put a stop to it. But, she didn't. She knew what was happening and she stayed mum. Integrity? none. Integrity as a person, that is.
JPR..
I do need to touch on "speculation".
My comment on her tendency to focus on persons and getting personal instead of focusing on the topic IS separate from her job.
My second comment is more in response to Mike's question and is speculation at best.
Speculation does not do much for anyone, that much I will agree. I hope this is something Patti can learn from. It takes a two way street to earn respect regardless of opposing views.
See:
http://handeyes.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/an-invitation-to/
http://handeyes.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/possible-model-for-guidelines-re-social-networking/
I see that Ms. Durr doesn't follow her own words much or the NAACP Guidelines for social networking.
Ann_C
Hiya JPR --
I have to agree with Candy at 9:16PM. I have seen her blog that attacked several people whom she disagreed with. All of a sudden, she apologized. I found it very poor excuse. She's an adult and has some responsibilities and duties to take care of her role model at NTID/RIT.
I'll have to understand and respect thousands and thousands of teachers and professors who would not want to be involved the cyberworld in order to keep their distances from the students. For what I've seen Patti D. to fail her mission for being a teacher/professor. She especially does not understand how the boundary line between the individual and the public figure works.
It would be the lame excuse if she says "Oh, it's my personal blog, not my teaching blog."
White Ghost
JPR means well by saying that patti's job should not be brought up online. No one should.
During the AB 2072 debate patti was privy to an email group that wanted to expose Candy's job. She has said that she got out of the email group. However, she did not even prevail upon the email group to stop what they were doing.
She covered her own ass yet stayed mum on the plot to expose Candy's job/ employer.
Protecting her own job? You betcha.
Ann_C
Ann C,
I don't know what to think.
Bringing up someone's position or job when it is ALREADY a well known fact shared by the person him/herself is okay. Attempting to contact anyone's employer out of a vendetta isn't. That's how I look at it. When I brought up Patti's employer it was to point out the lack of professionalism that she had when she is online because she herself made it known what she does and whom she works for. It is a reflection on her beyond her personal life.
As for her protecting her own, who knows. I wouldn't know either. Only Patti can answer that. One also wonders why everyone is protecting Ella when it is obvious she is behind a lot of attacks that are encouraged and JUSTIFIED in their email groups. Maybe Patti is scared of Ella. Who knows.
Sorry for being late.
Let me preface this by saying that I do recognize that everyone has his or her own opinion of how one should conduct himself or herself in blogosphere. I hope to remain a good neighbor by agreeing to disagree. I want to explain why I have a strong feeling that one's job should be off-limits to any discussion.
Ideally speaking, there should be the Great Wall between one's job and one's personal life. Whatever happens in his job remains in his job. Whatever happens in his personal life remains in his personal life. In the realistic world, this ideal separation is almost impossible or nonexistent. But, it makes a point that there should exist a very healthy boundary between one's work and one’s personal life. This is also true for the boundary between one's job and one's participation in blogosphere.
Unless a person volunteers all information about his job, we really do not know much what is happening at his job. It looks unfair for us to attempt to form link between his job and his participation in blogosphere without knowing all facts about his job.
When we talk about one's job, we give him the license or permission to talk about our job. This can lead to endless vicious cycle. Keeping one's job off-limits is one way to prevent this cycle from happening. This can lead to healthy respect for one’s job. What happened to Candy's job could not have happened if people who attacked her were to follow a simple rule to keep her job out of the picture.
I personally do not have problem with teachers and professors who are able to do their job in very professional way even though what they say in blogosphere does not fit the expectations that one has about teacher or professor. If they are not able to maintain professionalism in their job, they really have a serious problem. I have seen some people maintain two lives – work life and personal life - without a problem.
Ms. Patti Durr's job and everyone's job are sacred and valuable and deserve uttermost respect from everyone by, among several ways, keeping them off-limits to any discussion.
Thanks to everyone for letting me express my view.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
JPR..
For the most part, I will agree with you. However, when someone advertises their position online, people are going to give that person a higher standard. Human nature to do so.
Can you imagine Mike McConnell talk bout how much fun it would be to play with fires? Imagine the crap he'll get. And why?
I understand your view on this and understand why it means so much to you.
However, by focusing on the job when no one has contacted her employer, rather than focusing on personal attacks, I'd say that is enabling. I guess for you personal attacks are okay. I may be wrong. You seem to be affected by the fact that her position was brought up and you were not affected at all by the personal attacks. You were the one wearing toxic suit when you entered her blog. Or do you now wish you had not said it?
Yes, what we do in our real lives matters. My boss asked me, "Is it related to your job?" And, when she found out it wasn't, the matter was dropped. Does it matter? To each our own, it all depends on our moral compass, right?
Okay, I guess the message is - DO NOT BRING UP ANYONE's POSITION OR JOB.
AND
IT IS OKAY TO ATTACK PEOPLE ON A PERSONAL LEVEL
Is that what you're trying to say?
I want to add something and this has to do with ethics. I've taken ethics training for the longest time. I contacted someone whom I know that has credentials in Philosophy and Ethics - or rather, Moral Philosophy.
The response I got was: It goes without saying that how one conducts himself online is a reflection of his personal and work life. If it is a known fact what the person does, and the person involves himself in personal attacks on others, it is unethical.
Patti never hid the fact that she is an associate professor at the school she taught. What she did was unethical.
I was also told that if there was discussions on whether it was right or wrong, was mind boggling. Emphasis is: It goes without saying that it is UNETHICAL.
Patti - "for those of u who have not been properly introduced to the Kokonutty pundit – no loss. enjoy living in the real world and count ur blessings."
The other aspect is this "enjoy living in the real world and count ur blessings" retort begs the question. I deal with both deaf and hearing people in the world world on a daily basis. Not just in person but over the phone, field radio, teleconferences, conferences over the phone, and so on. I interact, talk, make plans, or whatever with both deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing people...DAILY. Plus, I have the opportunity to continually educate hearing people about hearing loss. Not just mine but in general because there are people I know with mild hearing loss who do not sign (nor have the need to sign).
Patti's "real world" is all Deaf all the time. And that's fine.
However, mine encompasses people who are hearing, deaf, hard of hearing, late deafened, and Deaf people of whom I interact easily. They are co-workers, musicians, pianists, friends of mine, and acquaintances as well as dealing those in the hearing, hh, and deaf communities.
Let's not get so smug, Patti, when it comes to the "real world." When you said that you just revealed yourself in more ways than one. Might as well drop the "love" and "peace" pretenses.
Hi Candy,
I do not intend to give any approval to the ad hominem attacks that occurred to you. But, if I condemn the ad hominem attacks that occurred to you, I also must condemn the ad hominem attacks that you did on others. This turns me into a judge, contrary to my principal or belief that I should not judge lest I be judged. I am far from perfect and have many flaws and am very reluctant to judge you, Ms. Patti Durr and many other people. Ad hominem attack happens every day that it is fruitless to scold people for doing ad hominem attacks. If I scold them, I am hypocrite for I did the same. It could be great that everyone practices the proactive Golden Rule (there are two kinds of Golden Rule – proactive and passive) but being realistic, I will not keep up with high expectation.
When we talk about someone's job, we are venturing into a dangerous territory. Unintended harmful consequences could happen. The best, but not necessarily the only, way is to keep out of that territory at the earliest moment and opportunity so that no harmful consequences can happen to the job and to the person's dignity that no one ever intends to inflict. This is my main concern behind my first comment. I may be guilty for judging you for mentioning Ms. Durr's job in the discussion but I was hoping to put a halt to it before it starts to snowball into bigger problem.
Ethics is a mammoth subject. Among the common branches of philosophy, one branch is dedicated solely to ethics, showing how broad and complex the field is. In a very crude attempt to simplify the field of ethics, it can be generally said that ethics is divided into deontological ethics and teleological ethics. It is really too simplistic. Many times, people use a mixture of them and sometimes, something else that is not neatly categorized as deontological or teleological ethics.
The comment that you got from your friend on ethics looks very close to deontological ethics. It looks like idealism. It means that a person should be consistent in principles at all the times in all situations. It is very easy to detect hypocrisy in this once a person deviates from principles even slightly. This can lead to moral absolutism that is almost impossible to follow. I personally tend to avoid deontological ethics in many areas of my life.
I like teleological ethics for most of my principles. One of the many names for teleological ethics is pragmatics and it is what I used for my first two comments. I look at what Ms. Patti Durr wrote. I ask myself if anything that she wrote has any effect on her job. Does what she wrote affect the way she treats her students? Does what she wrote affect the way she teaches her students? Are there any evidences that show the effect of what she wrote on her job and her interaction with students and others at her employer during her work time? If the answer to all questions is no, pragmatics would require me to mind my own business and leave her job out of the picture.
I can understand completely how your (and everyone else's) ethical system can differ from my ethical system in some ways. That's perfectly okay.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
JPR making excuses excuses excuses for Patti's DISGUSTED DISGUSTED DISGUSTED BEHAVIOR!!!!
Anonymous...
I think what JPR is doing is focusing on how Patti's position/job was brought up. Looks like JPR does not want to get into what Patti did.
He probably would not have shown up here and said anything if I had not mentioned that Patti works at NTID. He does not want to get into that (that's what it looks like)
As was explained to me and I think I understand now...bringing up someone's job and why is the key here. Question is: Why bring up that person's job?
MY reasoning has to do with holding Patti to a higher moral standard. (one would have to look at RIT's code of conduct - if they have one).
Some people bring up for the purpose of attacking, like what that email group did to me.
JPR MAY or MAY not think what Patti did is wrong, he is NOT going to discuss it. He is more concern about how people's job are brought up online.
But, to disregard what Patti did, is kind of enabling in my opinion. But, that's okay, I understand JPR is picking his own battle and I don't have a problem with that.
The problem here is where was he when my job was brought up several times online? ;o)
Post a Comment