7.813, Disc: LSA & Political Correctness

[The Linguist List]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-7-813. Sun Jun 2 1996. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines:  132
 
Subject: 7.813, Disc:  LSA & Political Correctness
 
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at emunix.emich.edu> (On Leave)
            T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <dseely at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Associate Editor:  Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin at emunix.emich.edu>
Assistant Editors: Ron Reck <rreck at emunix.emich.edu>
                   Ann Dizdar <dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
                   Annemarie Valdez <avaldez at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Editor for this issue: aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu (Anthony Rodrigues Aristar)
 
---------------------------------Directory-----------------------------------
1)
Date:  Sun, 02 Jun 1996 13:32:39 CDT
From:  jtt at casi.brin.org (John Turing)
Subject:  LSA Policies
 
---------------------------------Messages------------------------------------
1)
Date:  Sun, 02 Jun 1996 13:32:39 CDT
From:  jtt at casi.brin.org (John Turing)
Subject:  LSA Policies
 
I must admit that IUm a little disappointed in how the discussion
on LSA's meeting policy has been going.  What I don't get is a
perception that people are really trying to listen to the other
person's point of view.  This seems to be particularly true of
those on the 'left' of this discussion (and I use this term with
some regret, since I'm both 'left' myself, and gay to boot).  Posters
on this issue seem to be divided into at least five groups.
 
1.  People who assert that LSA's meeting policy is political, e.g. Michael
 Covington
 
URL: http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/html/7-734.html#1
 
2.  People who deny that LSA's meeting policy is political, e.g. Lynne
Murphy
 
URL: http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/html/7-749.html#5
 
3.  People who argue that LSA's meeting policy discriminates against
certain regions of the USA, e.g. Dick Hudson
 
URL: http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/html/7-786.html#3
 
4.  People who argue that there's no reason to expect that LSA should
meet in all regions: LSA alternates between the east coast, west coast
and midwest anyway, e.g. Ellen Prince
 
URL: http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/html/7-805.html#1
 
5.  People who say that there's no other position a rational person
could take, e.g. Karl Teeter
 
URL: http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/html/7-811.html#5
 
I think we can disentangle all this obfuscation by looking at it
from the standpoint of what we all agree on.  I'd suggest that
everyone, on all sides of the issue, would agree with the following
statement:
 
	Discipline-oriented organizations like LSA have a primary
	obligation first to their field, and second to their members.
 
Following from this, I'm fairly sure that everyone would agree
that (1) LSA's focus should be on linguistics, and (2) LSA
shouldn't have meetings in places where our colleagues
are going to get arrested or harassed.
 
I think, then, we can say that that part of LSA's policy which
is designed to protect linguists from actual harassment is
legitimate.  Where, for example, there are actively enforced
sodomy rules, LSA meetings should not be held.  This part
of LSA's policy is not 'political.'
 
What about LSA's policy on ageism and sexual equality?  For
that matter, what about states where sodomy laws remain on
the books because of ancient history but are never, ever enforced
any more?  We can't say that our colleagues are likely to suffer
damage from visiting such states.  LSA here is making a
statement which has nothing to do with linguistics or
protecting our members.  This part of LSA's policy is
clearly 'political.'
 
Now do these policies conflict with LSA's obligations
towards its members? Clearly, I think, the answer is yes.
Because of these policies, LSA meets (almost) exclusively
in (1) the Northeast (2) Chicago (3) California.  Many, many
linguists don't live in these places, and thus have to pay
expensive airfares to get there.  If, on the other hand, you
happen to live in one of these three areas, you can count
on getting to at least one LSA meeting in three pretty cheaply.
The argument that LSA alternates between the three major
regions of the US is specious.  What good does it do you if
you live in Georgia and LSA is held in 'your' region in
Boston?  The argument that LSA can only meet in large
cities and is thus limited to a few cities is also specious.
Can anyone seriously suggest that Atlanta or Dallas, or
Houston or Denver or Miami don't have the hotel capacity
to hold LSA?
 
So, I think we can conclude that LSA's meeting policy
does indeed discriminate against a considerable number
of its members.
 
I think that in this context we on the left have an obligation
of honesty.  I think we should first of all acknowledge that
the other side has some real, very strong arguments against
what LSA has done.  We *are* perverting LSA's mission.
We *are* doing something with these policies which drags
LSA into an arena where it might properly not belong.  What
is more, the people who are opposed to these policies are not
unperceptive conservatives with an absent social conscience:
their opinions are defensible even in our own terms.  If we
imply that they're not, all we're doing is demonstrating
that we on the left don't have the ability to understand points
of view different from our own.  We can only genuinely justify
what we're doing if we accept this fact, and say, with
some hesitation, that we hope the effects will be socially beneficial,
for that's the aim of such  policies.  And we should try, if
we can, to minimize the effects of the policies on those members who
live in the 'wrong' part of the country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-7-813.