On 3/31/04 11:49 AM, "Joe Waldron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> However, we will not label individual participants as "gun control
> proponents" or "pro-gun" for a number of reasons.
>
> First, we are trying to get past that kind of labeling because we
> believe it has not helped to move research and scholarship forward, though
> we do remain cognizant of the need to include multiple, diverse
> viewpoints. Thus, part of our aim has been to get away from sharply
> polarized positions.
This seems not terribly consistent with a statement from the attached
information on the center:
The Center will support new scholarship
> related to the Second Amendment, as well as conferences drawing together
>
> experts on both sides of the debate.
"Both" obviously implies two--no more and no fewer than two. But the same
person who says that the center will support conferences on "both sides of
the debate" says, in the same email, seems to be saying that such
dichotomizing isn't helpful, and implies that there are more than two sides
to be heard.
The purpose of the conference is to present
> viewpoints from across the spectrum,
Across *what* spectrum?
showcase new research and new
> approaches, and encourage scholars working in the largely unexplored
> middle ground in these contentious debates.
Hmmm. "Both" doesn't imply a middle ground.
>
> Second, we believe that the best way to understand the positions
> developed by all of the scholars in these debates is to read their
> published works on the topics of the Second Amendment and gun regulation,
> and to seek from those individual scholars any necessary clarification of
> their positions. As we are sure you can understand, imposing simple
> labels on complex scholarly works is a tricky business, and it is one in
> which we
> will refrain from engaging in the context of the upcoming conference.
Sure it's tricky. But let me suggest a simple test to see whether you
actually have something approaching balance. Ask each participant to respond
to one question: Do you generally favor more/tighter federal restrictions on
the sale and use of firearms, or fewer/looser ones?
If your responses come back all on one side or the other, or 90/10, then you
cannot, with any degree of integrity, claim or pretend to be holding a
conference that will "highlight the best scholarship on all sides of the
debates," or one in which "diverse viewpoints are represented," or one that
will "present viewpoints from across the spectrum," or one that will
"encourage scholars working in the largely unexplored middle ground."
At least, that's how it seems to me.
Mr. Cornell, are you willing to perform that simple test? Assuming that you
have the participants' email addresses, it would take you, perhaps, 5
minutes to send and process the results. A small price to pay, I would
think, to help overcome the skepticism of a reporter from the publication
that most diligently tracks the politics of gun control. Wouldn't it be nice
to be able to report to Mr. Workman that you do indeed have as "diverse" a
panel as you are representing?
I haven't asked him, but I suspect he might be impressed and surprised if
the results came back closer to 50/50 than 100/0.
So would I.
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage and you prepare your own
limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have
lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the
first cunning tyrant who rises among you."
-- Abraham Lincoln
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
