These ‘worst of the blogs’ awards are becoming fashionable, it seems. I don’t really mind - education blogs, particularly education technology blogs, need real criticism quite badly.
I’d like to see that criticism be less like Keith Olbermann’s mouth-frothing “Worst Person in the World” rants, but such is the climate right now.
There’s one point in these blog-criticism discussions that I’d like to see disappear with all deliberate speed - the “____ hasn’t even met the guy!” argument. Good Lord, what a dumb point.
Chiding a critic for not having met the subject of the criticism is almost always useless:
BPINI 2: P.U. to B.U., Flypaper
Why: Chester Finn decides, without ever having met the man, that the new dean at B.U. will ruin the school
Finn’s concerns about the incoming Dean, Dr. Coleman, likely stem from Coleman’s scholarship, especially in contrast to the excellent work by others in the School, as Finn points out, such as Charles Glenn. There’s a reason why the post says that Coleman’s scholarship is “well-known” - because it is. He’s not a mystery man who dropped from the sky and just happened to fall in Finn’s sights. There is nothing in the post that speaks to how much or how little Finn knows about Coleman. That Finn links to Coleman’s website and quotes from his professional portal reflects nothing on Finn’s understanding of, or interaction with, Coleman. It’s simply a citation, and one particularly beneficial to those who may not be familiar with Dr. Coleman.
Or most recently on Modest Meliorism, who analyzes D-Ed Reckoning’s post on the Bigger, Bolder manifesto:
Today’s winner has not only read the work of all 60 persons, but also met each of them in person, thus allowing him to conclude that they are both wrong and ‘jackasses’ (in all fairness, he puts ‘jackasses’ in cutesy strikethrough font).
Mr. DeRosa already addressed the criticism.
This argument - that we need to “meet” people in order to criticize their policies - is a slightly more gentle, scholarly version of what made the Jerry Springer Show such a joy to watch 10 years ago.
No matter how ridiculous the scenario, we’d frequently see a woman stand up and scream, “YOU DON’T KNOW ME!” to an audience member, as if “knowing her” - whatever that entails - would change our distaste for her having slept with her husband’s best friend, his cousin, his stepson and his father.
At least Springer’s guests treated us to the ever-delightful ‘triple snap in the Z formation’ as they made their proclamation.
The real irony is that the ‘YOU DON’T KNOW ME!’ bloggers haven’t themselves met the subjects they criticize and that they tend not to pull out the ‘meeting’ argument in the face of praise.
But they’re right - there are plenty of posts in need of improvement.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
Corey 06.13.08 at 11:45 pm
I gave it a second look, and I stand by what I wrote the first time. He very clearly implies that he is not intimately familiar with Coleman’s scholarship, and I very clearly indicated on what I based that inference.
Matthew K. Tabor 06.14.08 at 2:38 am
Corey,
I think it was a reach, you don’t. Nothing more.
Chad Lykins 06.14.08 at 8:38 am
First, thanks for reading!
You can certainly judge a policy to be wrong without meeting the person who supports it. But absent evidence of bigotry or some other moral flaw, one ought not conclude that the person is also a “jackass.” Feel free to read my follow up.
Matthew K. Tabor 06.14.08 at 2:34 pm
Chad,
I read your follow-up. Injecting the word “jackass” here or there is insignificant - it’s a non-issue.
Corey 06.14.08 at 8:08 pm
I wholeheartedly disagree that it’s a non-issue. We cannot possibly work productively toward better policy when people unjustifiably demean others with whom they disagree. We shouldn’t be belittling each other, we should be working to help kids.
Matthew K. Tabor 06.14.08 at 9:51 pm
Meanwhile, Robert Mugabe cuts the limbs off his opponents’ wives and then burns them alive - and you’re concerned about someone being called a jackass.
Julia 06.15.08 at 2:45 am
Can’t you be concerned about both? If our tolerance was set at a threshold Mugabe-high, we’d be letting people get away with a lot worse than calling someone a jackass. But does it mean we should?
kderosa 06.15.08 at 9:41 am
Jackass: a contemptibly foolish person.
So what I’m saying is that you’d have to be a contemptibly foolish person to endorse the bigger bolder manifesto. I gave five good reasons in the post. Five reasons that remain unrebutted by those taking offense. I think what we have is a bunch of true believers who don’t like being ridiculed by association and don’t have a good counterargument. I suppose I’d take or feign offense as well at least as a way to marginalize the argument.
Corey 06.15.08 at 11:09 am
KD: Why can’t you just disagree with the plan set forth in the agenda without calling people names?
MKT: Wow, are you serious?
Matthew K. Tabor 06.15.08 at 11:32 am
Corey,
Since you’re so bothered by an insignificant word, I thought I’d swing in the other direction and go for some inappropriate hyperbole. It worked!
Really, this bizarre milquetoast act is one reason why the general public has very little respect for the education field.
I hope you’re almost done with the Mister Manners speech here - it’s a real yawner.
And, for what it’s worth, I’d have cut you far more slack if I felt for a second that your sword was sharpened on both sides. You’re an education professional - you read Edwize, I’m sure. Apparently you thought Leo Casey using “anorexic” as an insult to Fordham’s staffers wasn’t worth a blog post, followup in comments, another blog post, and more comment followups?
Or maybe you’ve turned a blind eye toward folks like Jim Horn - or Susan O’Hanian, who disguises her contempt far better than Horn and others - who say unkind, undignified things about anyone who’s at least an inch to the right of Lenin. Maybe the next time they write a screed about how stupid, selfish, consumer-slavish, ignorant, unenlightened, etc. we are, you’ll toss them an award?
I’d also rather the Horns and O’Hanians just called me a jackass. Makes for a much quicker read.
Corey 06.15.08 at 12:24 pm
I actually don’t read Edwize, but what you describe sounds out-of-bounds. Feel free to send me links to posts you find objectionable.
Matthew K. Tabor 06.15.08 at 1:00 pm
Corey,
Edwize is the United Federation of Teachers blog. I imagine that everyone involved in education, at any level and in any region, would benefit from keeping abreast of the UFT’s thoughts and interests.
I’ll pass on forwarding you objectionable posts - there’s no reason for it. I think this entire discussion is ridiculous and nearly useless.
And if you really wanted me to forward to you every education blog post that’s intellectually dishonest, lacking in fact or logic, mean-spirited, out of touch, etc., your e-mail server would likely explode.
I’d like to nominate an issue for the next education poo-poo award, though. Perhaps you could write about how inadequate and offensive it is that the average administrator’s GRE scores are 427 Verbal and 523 Quant. Or perhaps how 28.5% of aspiring administrators score between 300 and 390 on the Verbal section [don't forget, folks, 200 of those points are for showing up].
Or you could continue to monitor the use of the word “jackass.”
kderosa 06.15.08 at 1:11 pm
Corey, maybe you could answer that question as well as I?
As I pointed out in my comments section, as the originator of Blog Posts in Need of Improvement you have a large glass houses problem.
Plus, I can see from some of your recent posts that you yourself fall somewhat short of the neutral academic tone you advocate.
So when you write something like “One would have to be either blind or willfully ignorant not to have noticed this” you can imagine how the person who disagrees with your position might not like being called “blind” or “willfully ignorant.”
I personally don’t find such language offensive (the blogosphere is a rough place where strong opinions are debated) when it is in the context of a post on the merits of an argument.
JTHRC 06.15.08 at 10:05 pm
Our skins are so thin these days which is a benefit for those of us who can take direct criticism and move forward…leaving the rest of you behind. Try being in business for yourself and not behind the security blanket of education.
Corey 06.16.08 at 2:04 pm
Yeah, that was probably a bit over the top. I’ll change it.
I don’t advocate a neutral tone. I advocate a civil tone.