Category: Ethics

Hey!

Let me start out by apologizing for being a day late. Hopefully that won’t happen again. 🙂

I was walking through Zellers the other day, and I couldn’t help but notice that there are already stacks of Halloween material sitting out, just waiting for a sugar-hungry child or adult to pick up and purchase.

Smart consumerism no doubt, who doesn’t love a nice little piece of candy now and then.

What struck me though was when later that day I stopped in at my local library and saw that they also had Halloween books and displays already being put up. After the initial rejection of the display as being over 6 weeks too early, I started to wonder about things on a deeper level though.

Why do our libraries put up Halloween, Easter, Christmas displays?

This isn’t an anti-religious holiday’s discussion, so please don’t think I am going that way. It may appear that way to begin with, but I promise, I hope to frame a little bit different of a question. So please bear with me.

What about those who don’t adhere to the same traditions that we do? What about those people who may not feel at home in a culture that celebrates certain events and holidays? Do I think that those who DO follow a certain belief system should have to keep quiet for the sake of equality – no. Do I think that putting up displays equals oppression, or conversely, equality – no.

What I do wonder though, is what drives us to make the decisions on what gets put on display, and what doesn’t?

Now I am very aware that there is a discussion on the aforementioned equality, assimilation, and cultural domination, and I promise to return to that conversation in a later post. However, I have started several classes this semester, and one in particular has been talking about the concept of community.

Community has been a term that gets bandied about quite a lot. Local communities. The breakdown of communities. Online Communities. Creating communities.

The list really does go on.

One of the crucial components of community (and there are several) is the sense of shared identity and values, which helps to create a sense of belonging. When I think about that library and it’s Halloween display, I see a reflection of that neighborhoods, and probably the cities overarching, value and beliefs.

But haven’t we heard for a long time that local communities are breaking down? Aren’t online communities the wave of the future?

Everyone who is reading this is undoubtedly part of at least one, mostly likely several, online communities.

Whether it be the loose and ethereal bonds of Facebook, a more structured learning community, a chat board, web-group, etc. everyone is part of some community that exists online.

And if sociologists are right, and I think they might be, these online communities are eroding face-to-face communities and dwindling the physical ties that we have to our surroundings. Simply view how many people are absorbed in their cell phones and tablets while walking down the street, and you can see that the online world is far more enthralling currently than day to day life.

That may be a bad thing, and it may be a good thing. I’ll leave the ethics of that for a later date.

The crux of what I wanted to get at though, was the seemingly hopeless challenge that is facing libraries right now. We’ve established that they are places where community and gathering happens, yet at the same time they are supposed to provide access and connections to larger ‘virtual’ communities, which are shaped by decidedly different values and beliefs.

Is it possible for one place to provide an anchor to a physical community, while at the same time be a port to digital, global communities? And even if it is possible, how does a library ever truly stay modern, while still trying to remain grounded against a tide that is becoming increasingly less interested with the immediate physical neighborhood around itself?

The ability to not have to temper any of your personality and beliefs because you can find an online community to belong to can be a wonderful thing. But what about our libraries that can’t be everything to everyone? What values can they represent that isn’t immediately driving people away from them because it isn’t THEIR values? What happens when the physical community is  longer coherent enough as a unit to even have values to represent? Then what?

In essence, what can they put up as a display that won’t seem hopelessly anachronistic in the face of a digital wave? Will libraries eventually become the physical meeting place of those who don’t want to find community online but prefer it face to face? Will they become the domains on those who can’t afford that way of life? Or perhaps of the educated and elite who can afford the luxury of seeking out like minded individuals to interact with face to face?

The weight of trying to serve the needs of a physical community that is becoming more and more detached, while also keeping abreast of the tide of digital communities seems like a Herculean task for libraries in the 21st Century.  Is it a fair one?

And this doesn’t even touch on the conundrum of trying to deal with the reality that many times it is minority ethnic groups who most use the physical space of the library, and their values may differ greatly from where the library funding comes from. Another sticky issue for another day.

So what do you think? Is this an impossible task? Or is there a way be an anchor to an increasingly eroding physical community, while still providing entry to digital communities? Should libraries be asked to do this? And if so, what should they put up for a display as you enter the building? Or perhaps more poignantly, should it be the same as what they display on websites/computer backgrounds?

Ryan

iPads, inclusion, and ethics…

I apologize about the lateness and brevity of this post – I’m feeling rather off today, but I still wanted to share something that fits with what we’ve been talking about in the last few posts.

As I was scanning Tame the Web, a libraries,technology and people Blog by Michael Stephens, I noticed an entry from this past Sunday about Freed-Hardeman University (FHU) introducing iPads, Digital Text Books, and Faculty training in these technologies as part of a program called iKnow2.0.

The basic thrust of the linked piece was that Freed-Hardemen was going to issue all new Freshmen iPads upon their entry into the iKnow program in Fall 2012, and are working to put together an entire educational system, including the retraining of professors and staff, centered around using this technology.

To my knowledge, this marks one of the first post-secondary, and perhaps first ever, complete move towards tablet based education. While the concept has been talked about before, the scope and depth of this program seems to outstrip any other efforts, reaching even into retraining staff on how to use the equipment.

Not to mention that they are supplying the technology to students themselves.

The real gem in all of this is that at the same time they are announcing a partnership with Inkling, a company that works to produce interactive and enriched content for iPad. The goal is, in their own words, to “reinvent the way people learn on the campus of Freed-Hardeman.”

That’s a pretty bold statement, and one the bears some watching.

Amidst all of this excitement though, there was one sentence fragment that did give me pause however.

Near the top, FHU states that they will be establishing minimum MacBook requirements for students. While that did non specify whether it was ownership, or merely proficiency, I cant help but feel that this is a bad decision.

Obviously, if at the early stages they are mainly concerned with getting people into their new program who can make the most of what they have to offer, then I can understand. But I still don’t agree.

Isn’t the point of technology and digital education to make learning more available to everyone? A move like this strikes me as a step in the opposite direction, away from inclusion and towards exclusion based on either 1) Wealth to afford the technology, or 2) An upbringing that allowed you access to technology (in other words, middle/upper class). Surely that can’t be an acceptable dividing line?

Beyond all of that though is the question: If your limiting your program only to those who have the ability to make the best use of what you are designing, isn’t that a design flaw to begin with? If you must be sufficiently talented to get anything out of the program, then perhaps the program itself isn’t organized in the most useful, and educational way.

This isn’t a grade-point level, or some requirement that is open to everyone. Anyone can take Math 30, Bio 30, etc. This points to skills that only a select percentage of the population have the opportunity to develop, and even worse, one that is tied to material wealth and access.

To me, that’s the opposite of what the new wave of education is supposed to provide, and at the very core, against the ethos of our educational system.

What do you think? Am I reading to much into all of this? Outside of this caveat, what do you think of the total program? In your mind, what would make it a success, and allow it to spread?

Ryan

Big Brother a good thing?

Hey and thanks for stopping by!

Have you heard of Flash Robs?

A short description would be to start with your average Flash MOB, a social network and text-message organized group, comprised mainly of youths, who ‘spontaneously/on purpose descend on a particular area to do something unexpected. In this example they aren’t kids, but you get the idea.) Now, add in theft, violence, occasional assault, and other crimes. You have a Flash Rob.

And they are starting to sweep the continent.

A short Google search reveals them in Ottawa, Washington, Maryland, etc.

Organized online or via text.

Police are baffled on what to do.

So what does that have to do with us?

It seems the question is: how much monitoring should be allowed of online activity and text messages?

I don’t want this to turn into a knee-jerk reaction of monitor everything, or conversely to simply decree it as invasion of privacy.

Somewhere in the middle there has to be an answer.

Perhaps more poignant to us, what degree of responsibility do we are facilitators, educators, and adults have to ensure that technology in our spheres is not being used for illegal activity? And how can we do that?

At one point I taught in a school that had a program installed on every computer that allowed an administrator to log everything that went on that computer, complete with the ability to pull up a live screen shot of what was on any of the monitors in the school at any moment. That seems extreme, but yet I could understand the motive behind it – to a point. While I think there could be a strong argument that was an invasion of privacy, was it really? If you use public technology, should you be subject to that kind of close monitoring?

What about in schools? We have all seen the signs about not going to inappropriate websites; do we simply add in that anyone caught engaging in criminal/questionable activity will also lose their computer time? That seems weak, and a half measure at best. So what can be done, if anything? It’s hard enough to keep tabs on a single child, let alone a library full of them.

And that doesn’t even touch on Cell Phone usage.

There will be some who rightly say it comes down to parenting, and it does. But at the same time, we want our schools, libraries, and classrooms to be communities, and that means we have to take a certain responsibility for upbringing, instilling morals, and yes, correction and discipline – beyond just passing the actual problem on to others to deal with (parent, principals, police, etc).

I’m really stumped on this one as you may be able to tell. We want to people to engage in technology, in a digital and multimedia universe, and I think that is an admirable goal. But by doing so, we seem to open ourselves up to problem and challenges that we couldn’t imagine. Trying to stay abreast of them can seem daunting, but don’t we owe it to our students, ourselves, and society as a whole to pay more attention and seek answers?

How to do it though becomes a slippery slope. We don’t want the government and institutions in out computers and minds all the time. We want freedom of thought, expression, and speech. Those thing by very definition require a reduction in censorship, spying, and control. But what happens when that freedom turns ugly and illegal? This won’t be intervention against revolution and people rising up against tyranny, but crimes we all agree on that are wrong? (We’ll save the philosophical discussion on perhaps our society is set up wrong and hence forcing people to do these things. Or even darker, that we simply have been brainwashed to think this is how society should operate by an already existing ‘Big Brother’.)

How do we stop what is ‘good’ intervention now from becoming ‘bad’ intervention later?

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”, but at the same time “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.”

What do you think? How far should we go into monitoring things? Is it even our job? Or are we simply facilitators?

Ryan

 

Ethics and the E-book

Welcome back!

I’d like to continue a discussion that we started last time about electronic textbooks, and digital publications in general, for schools. Monday’s post showed how the arrival of E-books is happening, and within 5-10 years will make-up a large chunk of textbooks sales, and provide an interesting option for schools and students to look at. Additionally, it was pointed out the ease of publishing works via digital means vs standard printers, and how that makes it far easier for new works to get on the market (and at lower costs).

But what about the ethics of E-book use?

As it stands right now, there are some bitter debates on copyright laws between publishers and consumers. My purpose is not to rehash the same arguments that go back to the Napster/MP3 battles, but rather to look at what does that mean for schools and libraries?

I think we can all agree that digital formats offer wonderful potentials for education, but what about the cost associated with them? What about availability? Is it right to encourage students to download copies of books, that they would ordinarily have to pay for, from file sharing sites for free?

It seems illogical that a school or teacher could encourage circumvention of copyright laws, even if they are deemed unfair, and still retain any ability to instill respect and obedience for other laws in their students. Let alone the legality of encouraging that, even by turning a blind eye, by anyone employed in Education.

Obviously, the debate about the ethical obligation of teachers and schools to instill values in students is a rather old, and sometimes tired, debate. But yet it still raises up passions in people, especially as the situation always changes nearly as fast as the calendar flips.

There are those who would argue that students, schools, educators, and people in general should have free access to knowledge and literature. Any attempt to restrict, even if it is by fees and costs, should be resisted.

Still others would claim that c capitalist society is based on commerce. However, where the overheads are minimal, so should be the costs associated with access to the material. Since the product can be found for free, it’s perfectly fine to do whatever it takes to get it.

Another group may claim that since it can’t be policed effectively, that means it is beyond the pale. Until such time as the laws can be applied, it’s a free for all.

Then there are those who feel that even though you may get away with it, and that it may be a ‘small’ breach of the law, it’s still wrong.

All of these points have merits, and all of them make a compelling personal case for our conduct.

The question though, is what code do SCHOOLS have an obligation to follow? Is it up to the individual educator and board to decide? Or should there be a larger ethos that informs this choice?

I understand that this conversation can cut close to the bone for many people. But that often makes for a good discussion, or at least a good couple minutes of private pondering.

I’m going to close with my own opinion, just so that I’m not hiding behind the discussion.

I think schools CANNOT, SHOULD NOT, and MUST NOT fall prey to the allure of using, tacitly approving or encouraging, and in anyway being party to circumvention of copyright laws. We may not agree with the laws as they are written; it may be cheaper and easier to ignore them; and in the end it may even help our pedagogy in the here and now, but what message does it send to our students and the community as a whole? We can’t choose to only uphold the rules that don’t inconvenience us, and we can’t get mired in philosophical debates with ourselves on legality WITHIN our classroom practices. Work to change rules. Speak up against them. Encourage students to do the same. But DO NOT encourage them to, do not lead by example in showing them how to, ignore the rules.

Ryan