roundtable: Re: Responsive Proposal (fwd)

roundtable: Re: Responsive Proposal (fwd)

Re: Responsive Proposal (fwd)

Vigdor Schreibman - FINS (fins@access.digex.net)
Tue, 5 Sep 1995 06:19:00 -0400 (EDT) 

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 06:19:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@access.digex.net>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: Responsive Proposal (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950901180009.22666H-100000@uhunix.its.Hawaii.Edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950905051152.4005A-100000@access1.digex.net>


On Fri, 1 Sep 1995, Majid Tehranian wrote:
> 
> dear vigdor:
> 
> i'm grateful for your vigorous response.  it is better to be opposed than 
> to be ignored.  i share most of your concerns, but i still believe it is 
> better to focus on the process of building up a global classroom rather 
> than decide ahead of time what that classroom is going to teach.  i have 
> enough faith in my acenet colleagues that i hope the classroom will 
> enlighten all of us on some of the issues you have raised.  but in a 
> systematic and scholarly fashion.  

  Majid,

  I am delighted to learn that you wish to proceed with your proposal
in "a systematic and scholarly fashion" but there are some inconsistencies
in your statement that require clarification.

   You place reliance upon "faith in your acenet colleagues." That no
doubt may be comforting to those who desire your faith in them but it
obviously does not amount to a strategy to proceed in "a systematic and
scholarly fashion."  What is the system you suggest?  Does it not have a 
purpose and a strategy, as I insist it must?

  Moreover, nowhere in my proposal do I suggest that one must "decide
ahead of time" what the intended global classroom, "is going to teach." 
What is most obvious about your proposal is that the global community is
not presently at the stage of designing any lesson plans. 

  I think it fair to suggest that at the present stage of your proposal to
construct a global educational network, what is needed is the collective
conceptualization by all the affected stakeholders of a desirable vision
of the required infrastructure architecture.  Accordingly, it is only
logical before proceeding that the community decide to what end and by
what means such an infrastructure should be constructed following a sound 
theory of futures creation. 

  I hope that you won't tell us that the end in view is "globalization," 
and needs no further consideration.  Surely, you don't contemplate another
exercise, in the field of education, complementing the NAFTA and GATT
treaties getting shoved down the throats of the citizenry to serve the
self-interests of the mega-corporations.  If this is not what is
contemplated then a great deal needs to be explained as to ends and
strategies, of course, proceeding in "a systematic and scholarly fashion." 

Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@access.digex.net>

[CNI Home Page]