|
this page is at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Anarch/Porno.htm [The following opinion piece was published, under the above title, in the December 11, 1997 issue of the Mass Media, the weekly student newspaper at the University of Massa- chusetts/Boston, three weeks after the issue that stirred such controversy.] My goodness! Can it be true that internet pornography has invaded our intellectual bastion, has sullied the purity of our devotion to higher purposes? And even worse, that state funds were used for mere fun. Those poor taxpayers. They have to pay for their pornography, but ours? Yes, our Great Leaders are duty-bound to assure the proper use of state funds. So of course all the academic hens are clucking. "Dirty pictures," as Tom Lehrer used to sing back in those risqué 60's, "are fun." First a memo from John Applebee ($67,606.24, acting vice chancellor for student affairs). Because the "proper" use of state funds is supposedly an issue in this pseudo-drama, I will indicate gross annual rates of pay, exclusive of all other benefits--medical insurance, etc.--as of 1996. Titles are in lower case to show lack of respect for the administrative hierarchy. Mr. Applebee's 11/24/97 memo begins ominously: "The freedom of the press is a cherished value in our society." Just how cherished is already hinted at in the next sentence: "With this freedom, however, comes the responsibility . . ." And later, obviously parroting what he was told to say: "[I]t is the University administrations's position that the Mass Media used very poor judgement . . ." Tut, tut. Then a memo from the UMB Institute for Asian American Studies, also dated 11/24/97, signed by Connie Chan ($59,449.52, co-director), Paul Watanabe ($68,117.40, co-director), Hiep Chu ($38,146.16, coordinator), Shauna Lo ($25,624.56, office manager). This memo says, and I find it totally credible, that many people were outraged by the pornographic photos and the headline in the 11/20/97 Mass Media. I join them in their final demand: "Any assaults on the dignity of any of us must be condemned by the entire Umass Boston community." We disagree, I believe, in our judgments on the relative importance of various "assaults" on human dignity, a disagreement worth exploring in depth, but which I will defer for now. Then a memo from the Student Senate Steering Committee, dated 11/25/97. Apology, a statement that they are "sincerely distraught" at [being caught in?] "clear and inappropriate use of Senate computers . . . etc., etc." They're learning to try to cover their asses, like administrators. No big shock here. Then a memo from Sherry Penny ($161,950.36, chancellor) on 12/1/97. Her predictable response to the pseudo-crisis, probably after squandering additional state money on legal counsel, was to appoint a committee, "an Ad Hoc Fact-finding Committee" to "submit a confidential report to the Executive Staff" in two weeks. Why confidential? Why run this supposedly public institution as though it is a private corporation? There's not supposed to be "proprietary information" to keep away from competing businesses. And what is the Executive Staff, an administrative organ of which I've not heard before? Her penultimate paragraph contains the following absurd clause: "[T]he most compelling issue that has been raised by these events is that the fundamental values by which UMass Boston lives have been challenged." Public relations garbage! Penney's ad hoc committee consists of Matthew Thompson ($61,500.40, director of affirmative action), Phillip O'Donnell ($62,108.80, associate director of public safety), Mary Grant ($73,543.60, assistant vice chancellor for human resources), Charles Boland ($86,150.48, director of computing services). Notable is the high representation of students and faculty, quite appropriate in view of her true concerns. The Mass Media of 12/4/97 has much comment, including a statement by Jean MacCormack ($133,250.00, vice chancellor of administration) which ends: "University resources are available for educational purpose[s] only. It is entirely inappropriate for anyone--students, faculty or staff--to use University property to access any type of pornographic material." I think the Mass Media staff used poor taste in the headline referring to people of Asian ethnicity and perhaps also in placing the eye-catching photo on the first page. The three photos, without identification in the article, portray people apparently of light hue, but not, at least to me, identifiable as members of any particular ethnic group. As for pornography, I would not object to it if it were not part of the erotic commodity industry. It is the destructive drive to exploit every conceivable avenue to make money that debases nearly every legitimate activity: agriculture, forestry, medical care, education, and so on. If someone desires erotic stimulation that ought to be acceptable, as long as it is not obtained through the oppression of other people. And now for obscenity. What is truly obscene at "our" university is the arrogance and hypocrisy of the overpaid parasites in the bloated administrative hierarchy. The administration has transformed "our" university into a feudalversity. There is no institutional respect for students, absolutely none. Students, part-time faculty, staff, we must organize ourselves to downsize the administration and to transform this noncommunity into a real center of socially significant critical thinking. In the next article I will expose some of the hypocrisy in such statements as "University resources are available for educational purpose[s] only." Earlier articles on these matters are on my website in the Notes on Greed folder.— G.S., November 20, 1997
Return to the homepage of the website. |