Reading Blood and Lazere’s articles reminded me a lot of Contemporary Issues last semester.  I believe that Blood’s proposed weblog rules are in good taste.  She makes a great point that even though the unrestricted and unmoderated nature is a good thing, it can also be a fault.  Ethical standards need to be upheld no matter where writing is published, and the rules Blood proposes seem like they should almost be common sense for any writer who considers themselves a professional.

Though I had a lot of trouble reading Lazere’s article, I found his rules equally valuable in regard to ethical argument and debate.  In nine short points, he outlines an appropriate way to argue with a strong point of view that some would interpret as bias.  If the audience is informed of possible bias before anything else is explained, they can use that knowledge to filter the information they are being given.  This filter allows for an argument to be pointed and passionate without completely disregarding objectivity.

This is what I have so far:

Revolution, La Vi Boheme, Another Brick in the Wall, Stay True to Your School, All Falls Down, Fight for Your Right, School’s Out, and Schools are Prison.

If anyone has any suggestions, let me know!

After doing this research on academic tenure reform, its hard to look at it or teachers unions in the same black and white way the media portrays them. Tenure is a good idea gone bad (courtesy of some rather bone-headed Supreme-court legislation in the 70′s) and teachers unions are a reluctant bad guy at best, defending an altered version of the policy they’d always upheld.

Hopefully, these statewide reforms for tenure will go off well. Other than that, very glad to have it done.