The season of disinvitation continues: Chico State University can't handle a slideshow

“”””” John Game says:
October 27, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Concerning prop 23 itself, there is a strong environmentalist argument in its favor that is not being heard: currently, huge solar thermal arrays are being planned and approved in fine areas of the Mojave Desert. They will ruin much native habitat and frgment the finest desrt ecosystem in the world. “””””
Well John; you certainly have hit on a point; but you also have missed the point of AB-32; whcih has nothing to do with the environment .
It is simply a tax scam in the name of environmentalism; making “big Texas oil” the cause of all of California’s environmental problems; and promoting the financial interests of Kleiner Perkins, and other “Venture Capital” enterprises; who have former Veep Al Gore as their standard bearer; and who see public tax dollars as funding their rape of sensitive desert areas; that both CA Senators Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein, went to great lengths in the Congress to protect; from destruction.
A recent newspaper article on the subject describes a large number fo permits being issued to build these monstrous eyesores on “public lands”; amounting to some 23 million acres of the Desert Southwest. In one instance four Desert Tortoises are going to be relocated to who knows where; to stop them from interfering with these money grubbing venturers; who want the taxpayers to assume the risks for them.
23 million acres is a whole lot of land; for comparison the entire Arctic National Wildlife Reserve; that pristine arctic desert wasteland in Alaska is a mere 19.2 million acres (30,000 square miles); so rather silently; the Obamanistas have given away a whole slew of rare public property for the permanent exclusive use of friends of Al Gore and folks like him.
What do you think is the chance you might get to drive through one of those desert wasteland solar farms in your pickemup truck one Saturday night; well without getting your head blown off by armed guards; who will be needed to ensure that the Native Americans who currently inhabit those lands don’t sneak back into what was once theirs.
Prop 23 simply throws the spotlight on the AB-32 sham; which is already public law in California.
I think I am going to take off next Tuesday; and either go on a wine tasting trip to Salinas Valley or Monterey; or maybe just go to a bar; to get drunk.
I haven’t actually observed anybody commit Hara Kiri; and frankly I don’t really want to stay sober and watch a whole State do it.
But if the polls are on the mark; and Californians do to themselves what the polls say they will do; then I’m not likely to stay around.
If I wanted to live in a backward third world country; I would pick one of my own choice, and move there.
Recent studies show that at least eight countries on earth, are now regarded as “more free”, than is the USA; and I’m sure that such studies of the situation for the 57 States of the USA; would put California as #56 or #57 place.
And luckily one of those countries; I already understand the language; and for its nearest neighbor; I can actually translate with a fair rendition of what they mean.
As they say; be careful what you pray for ; You may get it.

REPLY: And my point is that they made no indication of format, and made no caveats in the invitation of any kind. If they wanted to be fair, owing up to the mistake of not specifying format with the invitation, they could have simply allowed visuals for everyone. I even offered to make that happen. It would have been a win-win situation – Anthony

I think this is a perception issue: You had a perception of what the debate format was to be, and it wasn’t like that. I can’t actually say that I have ever seen a debate that had powerpoint and other visuals, so my perception would have been different from yours. So they didn’t put it in the invite? Looks to me like the invite was a tester to see if there was interest up-front. Did they note how long each person would be speaking for? Who the moderator would be? How rebuttals would be handled? etc etc. They did agree to the hearing assistance system (although they didn’t mention the availability of that in the invite, either).
Yes, its disappointing that they couldn’t (or wouldn’t) accommodate your ideas for the format of the debate, but I think you’re being a bit harsh on the organizers.
REPLY: As I pointed out to Mark Stemen, the last time I was invited to a debate by CSUC the visuals were encouraged, and I was complimented for my use of them. Without any indication of restrictions, how would I know? I’m a TV person, invited to do something that will be carried live on TV…yet I can’t use visuals? Its absurd. Now if they said classroom on campus, I’d have no issue. But this was writ large for TV presentation and live webcast. Without visuals, we may as well do AM radio – Anthony

Maybe you should have accepted the invitation and doggedly mimed the entire event 🙂

John Game
I put this on the tips thread yesterday, but since you bring it up, maybe it will be ok for me to back you up here.
Interesting article on conflict between local tribes and large solar projects being fast-tracked in California desert at:
http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_native20.28b0857.html

Anthony, you have my sympathy. For sure they would never want me and my personal photos there — shots of tropical rain and monsoon forests, savannas and temperate grasslands, deserts and semi-deserts, woodland and scrub, mid-latitude and boreal forests, marine west-coast environments, tundra, ice sheets, ice shelves, sea ice, glaciers, mountains. Someone might think this dude knows as much about climate as those guys playing computer games in air-conditioned offices.

I’m a special ed teacher who is making progress with my students using cutting edge (“but we don’t do it that way here”) teaching strategies that work. I have data that proves it. Doesn’t matter. Because I am using these strategies (and doing many other things that are new to the district), I have been called on the carpet for writing IEP goals that relate to these strategies. I have also been written up for several other things (like questioning whether or not we have enough information to label a student as being mentally retarded). I was also written up because last year I was unable to get in 100 percent of my I’s dotted and my T’s crossed on my IEP’s due to my own H1N1 illness and the death of my father. But even then, my students made substantial gains, and some even met grade level standards while suffering from learning disabilities.
I am clearly the odd man out, new comer, and rowing in a different direction against the current. All of that is to say:
Belief trumps data. If you are the holder of the belief and the power, you can exclude those with the data, regardless of how accurate or well presented your data is.

“The Great Debate is meant to provide space for citizens to practice an older discourse form.”
You should definitely check out whether this is true – have someone go there and look if there really no one is working with slides.

To me the dumbing-down of the world due to overuse of PowerPoint is a greater threat than global warming. The tipping point for me will be when Parliament and Charlie Rose both final cave in and start using slides!
Not to say slides aren’t useful – just that oratory still has a place in the world I think.
Regular reader – appreciate the blog. Gotta say this post seems a bit… Rommnian and I sympathize with Ms Wolf.
Cheers,
-Oliver

Anthony, I thought I was on this website – http://www.27bslash6.com/p2p2.html – when I read your blog post. My Lord, do we not teach how to prepare invatations anymore? Or is that too quaint (as in an oral only debate!)

Sorry Anthony, I think you’re being paranoid on this one.
REPLY: Paranoid? Where did that come from?- A

Yes, it’s a BS reply. But the thing is they know that any discussion about it will be bad for you since the topic is the debate format only. That’s a hard thing for people to really invest in. In fact, it makes you look like you had an autistic tantrum where you think the world is against you. A better response would have been to decline and let it be.
I’m reminded of Nichelle Nichols when she got the part for Uhura on Star Trek. It was a small part with virtually no lines. She considered quitting midway through the first season and actually submitted her resignation to Gene Roddenberry. She was a guest at a NAACP fundraiser where a fan wanted to meet her. It was Dr. Martin Luther King. He went on and on about what an important role she is playing and how much it means to everyone. She said it’ll be sad to leave her costars. King said “NO!” He said that this was not a black role, not a female role, not a menial role. It was a role that could have been filled by anyone. She had to stay, said King. And she did. She went back to Gene and told him the story. Gene said, “Thank God someone understands what I am trying to achieve.”
I’m not comparing that to getting the facts out about AGW. That simply cannot be done. What I’m getting at is that sometimes you take what is presented, not because you think it’s the best way to go about it, but because it presents an opportunity. King saw that. I think many of us see a missed opportunity. Yes, it would not be what you wanted. But if you really want to call their bluff, you be there.
Go hard or go home. Don’t screw around with this kind of nonsense.

Anthony,
I understand the time constraints. The offer was a slot in our community center talks. I would give you the time slot that worked best for you (between 10-3, 12:00 would be ideal. You can talk about whatever you want about climate change, and the facility is set-up for projection.
I can guarantee a large crowd but we will do everything in our power to make sure everyone knows about your talk. Last year we had both pro and anti nuclear speakers and it was really nice to hear both sides.
If it does not work out, I understand. Just know you have an open invitation from the Institute of Sustainable Development to speak on campus, and they are willing to accommodate your needs.
Take care,
Mark
REPLY: Check your email – Anthony

Let’s face it – the “debate” organizers don’t want the kids seeing pictures of climate monitoring stations next to barbeques, asphalt parking lots, sewage treatment plants, A/C exhausts, etc. The truth could be damaging to their fragile minds. Better off showing them “funny” climate change awareness videos with children getting their heads blown up by a teacher if they don’t believe in global warming.

I seem to recall a certain piece of federal legislation called the Americans with Disabilities Act. Which has occasioned many, many expensive legal actions since its enactment.
Anthony Watts is, I am sure, too much of a gentleman to threaten an ADA invocation.
I am equally sure that, were the tables turned, and if a proponent of the AGW hypothesis were to have been kept out of a debate based upon a refusal to provide facilities to accommodate that proponent’s disability, legal counsel would already have been retained, and a very large settlement figure would have been bruited.

I tuned into this one late. Sorry, Andrew, but you’re not coming across well on this one. They invited you knowing of your skeptical viewpoint. They readily agreed to accommodate your hearing impairment. Refusing to alter their established rules (not the first time they had imposed those rules) to accommodate your preferred presentation format was not unreasonable in my view. The lady was cordial and courteous in her exchanges. I imagine she was shocked at the broadside attack that followed. WAY out of line.
There are gracious plenty plots and schemes out there to stifle AGW opposition, but this does not look to me to be one of them.
REPLY: But the rub here is, they didn’t make the “established rules” known to me with the invitation nor the supporting documentation. They invited me to a televised TV debate, in a room where visuals are the norm. Denying visuals when discussing a complex scientific issue that screams for them in that venue is just silly. Like I said, if it was a classroom at Chico State, where they have every right to dictate rules, that’s one thing and I would have acquiesed, but this is the city council chambers, where they have a special AV system setup to allow visuals during public debate. I and many other people have used them in this room. I can’t rebut anything, all I can do is make a statement, they offered to let me do that. But they wouldn’t let me do it using my visual skills. If the tables were turned, there would be squalling all the way to Sacramento.
Two years ago I handled a live weekly community forum at the CARD center where the local observatory curator, Kris Koenig, invited Dr. Mark Giampapa from the National Solar Observatory to speak on the sun. He mentioned the fact that the sun has an influence on earth’s climate in a few slides. Some of CSUC’s groupies in the audience got all bent out of shape and demanded “equal time” to counter what they said was “bad science” from the NSO scientist. They made a stink and got want they wanted – and ENTIRE HOUR LONG PROGRAM ALL TO THEMSELVES. They brought in CSUC Prof Jeff Price (an IPCC author) who told us how wrong and stupid we all were. And then the next week our series on astronomy went on like nothing had happened. But I never forgot this. In retrospect I should have told them to shelve their concerns, but we accommodated them anyway. So what do I get when I ask for a similar accommodation? Zilch.
So please, don’t lecture me about the sorts of things that go on in Chico when when green groups feel their message and dominance may be disadvantaged.
And, it is Anthony, not Andrew. – Anthony

1. Joel says:
October 27, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Anthony,
There seems to have been some misunderstanding from the start of the email exchange. It sounds like this was a educational experience and you’re a well known skeptic for the slated debate. I can’t speak for Wolf, but I can bet she had no idea of your hearing disability when she first sent the email. She was probably given your name by students or while asking around about knowledgeable people for the debate.
Clearly the debate format was set. Whether you think it dated or a poor platform for a scientific debate really doesn’t matter. The debate might have been more focused on public policy and less on science. In the exchange once you stated you wouldn’t be able to attend without the format being changed, then you declined at that point. Your tone with Thia Wolf seemed somewhat negative. Her ability to change the format of the debate is questionable. But as the purpose of the debate was educational for the students, I don’t see why they would.
1. Eric Anderson says:
October 27, 2010 at 2:53 pm
In fairness, I think this may have been a simple misunderstanding blown out of proportion. This is not the same situation as the Cameron-Moreno debacle, where no debate was held and Cameron came up with a lame excuse about being above debating Moreno.
I have no problem with the idea that there is value in students learning oratory arts, which could even include Q&A and on-your-feed responses to questions. If that is the format they use and have traditionally used, then fine, I don’t think a valid complaint can be made. Indeed, it might be the case that they wanted Anthony to present, but — to them — it seemed he was demanding changes to their long-standing format. Any complaint by Anthony would be much stronger if it turns out someone else uses visual aids tomorrow night, or if they have permitted it in the past.
The above contributors have explained the situation well. I add my 2 cents for what it is worth.
Anthony:
You made an assumption that many people make that activities sponsored by a university that they are not what they seem to be. The Chico web page clearly spells out the agenda, the format is defined, and the expected results are that a debate was held. I don’t think you understood that purpose. The debate is not intended to inform anybody about the issues AB 32. Debates are held to emphasize rhetoric skills and as means to convince the listener. You made the assumption that the intension was to inform because you know something about the subject. AB 32 is a proposed law and the debate is about a law and not about whether it should be a law. Lawyers debate meaning and interpretations of laws.
As former faculty member in the CSU System for 27 years I spend a lot of time on faculty committees. Perhaps I am too cynical but I always felt that the decisions we reached about the merits of some academic program was not based on critical reasoning or ethics but upon rhetoric. Those most skillful in verbal discourse were heard because of the way the spoke and not because of what they said. That is how universities operate.
After your second letter, they owed you a phone call to explain that the nature of the debate and that it is an academic exercise in communications. Unfortunately, the question of your participation should have stopped when the university understood that you are very hearing impaired. I doubt that Dr. Wolf knew that you were hearing paired before and then was stuck having realized that her invitation had created a problem. I don’t know whether you are familiar with signing but I wonder what she would have said if you demanded an interpreter. Of course you wanted visual aids which are generally not allowed in debates
While I was teaching at the CSUN, we had the second largest population of hearing impaired students in the United States, second only to Gallaudet University. I know how difficult it is communicate with these students in the scientific terminology. I had to use a lot of visual aids because the vocabulary in the sciences is so different from the common meaning of words. I know how much the students suffered in trying to communicate in class through an interpreter or in writing.
It is ironic that the CSU system that prides itself in helping students with disabilities did not have the sensitivity to call you and explain what was really going on in the debate. My take on this whole misunderstanding about the Great Debate is that the university owes you an apology for their lack of sensitivity to your disability because they failed to be sure you understood the ground rules of debating in the first place. Shame on you Dr. Wolf.

I really wish that Anthony’s Prop 23 commercial example by the Am. Lung Ass. had caught some attention here. [The YouTube vid at the end] and his comment: “The kid with the inhaler is a nice touch, don’t you think? No science here, AB32 it’s about limiting CO2, not particulates! And I used to think the Lung Association was a straight shooter.
“They are off my list of charities now.”
Here is their contact link. Maybe we could do some good directing our energy to letting them know what we think about it.
http://www.lungusa.org/about-us/contact-us.html

davidmhoffer says:
October 27, 2010 at 8:42 pm
======================
Extremely well said.

One of the hallmarks of those with a penchant for accurate data is that we care too much for some folks. I am a data freak. I don’t say it unless I have the data to back it up. One of the things that I was criticized for was writing and reporting data that demonstrated a lack of growth towards grade level benchmarks and that the student was at risk of not graduating with a standard Oregon diploma. I was told to be more positive. Was I being encouraged to lie or just tone down my concerns? Don’t know. The comment was to “be more positive” so as not to “upset the parent”.
But for me, if I were the parent and I read positive reports year after year that my child was making progress (measured how?) and was a pleasure to have in class, and then find out in high school that my child had no chance in hell of passing the benchmark standards now in place (thus no forthcoming Oregon diploma) I would be looking for a lawyer.
Parents need to be honestly informed using hard data for obvious reasons. I had better be accurate in what I say and I had better have the data to back up what I say. Folks, this climate stuff involves people’s pocket books. Traditional debate be damned. Show me the data.

Really, Anthony! Why did you bother to request the use of visuals? You should just show up with them. If they “disinvite” you on the spot they really look bad. As you say, it is the norm today, so it’s not like you’d be trying to sucker them or anything.
I’ve done this before, showing up to a speaking engagement in a pair of nice jeans and polo style shirt when I knew that somebody was, for silly reasons, expecting a suit and tie (but they never stated so). When the inviter approached me with concern, I just said, “Oh, it’s okay. I don’t need one”, as if I thought it was me he was concerned for, rather than for his own silly preconceived notions of “proper”. I then opened by saying that the words I would speak were either right and true and worthy of acceptance, or they weren’t, but what I was wearing was inconsequential; if you came today to see someone wearing nice clothes perhaps you should have gone to an upscale department store instead.
I kept their attention all the way to the end, too 😉

I believe that invoking the ADA may be justifiable here, to make a point.
If Chico was hosting a debate on theoretical physics and dis-invited Hawking because he could not address the audience or moderator directly…..

All bark, no bite – Try – ‘All mouth, no trouser’s’ or for my state side friends ‘All mouth, no pants’.

Understood, no complaints – just didn’t know the pre- protocol… 🙂

I sympathise totally with you Anthony; I’m deaf in one ear and much inhibited in the other. People that can hear well simply don’t understand our problems. Even round the familly dining table debating is nearly impossible. One misses the subtlety of what’s being discuss and can’t reply and the right moment or in a way that demonstrates understanding.
As a councillor here I find I have to listen intently at all the meetings because we have no aids what so ever.

Anthony
As a fellow sufferer with a very similar hearing loss to yours, I just want to say that I know just how difficult it is to take part in large group discussions. I only wish my brain could cope as well as yours!
Bets regards

When all is said and done, they invited someone with an 85 per cent loss of hearing to participate in the debate, and said ‘No’ when the invitee asked to use his aids, to compensate for the hearing loss and present his case. How unreasonable can you be?

California State University (CSU)
http://www.calstate.edu/AcadAff/CodedMemos/AA-2006-41.pdf
Access to Electronic and Information Technology for Persons with Disabilities
The California State University (CSU) has an ongoing commitment to provide access to information resources and technologies to individuals with disabilities. This commitment is articulated in the January 2005 Executive Order 926, the CSU Board of Trustees Policy on Disability Support and Accommodations
http://www.calstate.edu/EO/EO-926.html.
“It is the policy of the CSU to make information technology resources and services accessible to all CSU students, faculty, staff and the ‘general public’ regardless of disability.”
Chico State University are breaching their own policy on access to technology for people with known disabilities.

jon shively:
AB 32 is a proposed law
Would that it were so! AB32 was enacted into law some time ago. Which is why Prop 23 is so important–if nothing is done, the consequences, good or bad, will soon be evident to all. This issue is more important than academic debating demonstrations, fun as they are.

Lets be clear what Chico State University are stating. Participating in The Great Debate is only open to the able-bodied. That is fundamentally a breach of university policy.

Chico State University events, including events that are open to the public, are subject to the university’s policy of equal access and participation for students, staff and the general public irrespective of a person’ abilities or disabilities.
You cannot bar a disable person’s participation on the basis that a particular event is only for the able bodied. That is discrimatory and a breach of university policy.

Anthony,
a woman in our office has dyslexic problems, she has an exceptionally high IQ but when she reads or writes all the letters to her do not make sense. She has a voice software with a a spell check that takes care of her problem as such that I worked with her several months before I knew that the slight stutter had a deeper companion, I do not know if this would help you, or if it exists, you have tried it and it don’t fly, but would not the system above working in reverse solve your problem, if more than one person is talking at once voice recognition software might help sort it out. Anybody out there know what I am talking about ?

It is a shame that this video that Anthony posted has recieved no discussion while we beat a dead horse to death.

People not familiar with Chico might not understand how the local university and green movement drive our politics. But you can guarantee that a debate on Prop 23 prior to an election would not be a simple “educational” affair (regardless of the organizer’s intent). Anthony would likely face a hostile crowd in a politicized environment.
In our town Anthony has been called a weapon of mass destruction, a screaming mercury monkey, and one letter writer to the local paper suggested he kill himself. The crowd he would debate in front of, as a majority, would hold those viewpoints.
While the email exchange above should have had a softer tone, Anthony has earned the priviledge to seek adjustment to the debate format. Regardless of hearing loss, he’s the big fish in the little pond when it comes to the topic of climate. I think that bothers local people who disagree with him. They want to diminish him, cut him down to size, and force him away from this blog where he guides the content. When people provoke you by suggesting you “crawl out to play”, they aren’t doing so because they’ve arranged an environment hostile to themselves. The implicit message is that he’s hiding behind this blog. When they don’t accomodate his desire for slides, it’s in part because they don’t believe he’s worthy of special treatment. They don’t see his success with this blog as valid.
Here’s my suggestion to some of our local folks.
Anthony should probably send a note to Ms. Wolf along the lines of “I took an overly harsh tone with you in our email exchange, good luck with your event.” And then he should ignore requests for local debates and continue to produce this informative and effective blog.
Mark, who’s already acknowledged this, should know better than to goad people into these venues. That’s like me suggesting that he crawl out from under the safety of the university and publish a blog on sustainability to challenge Watts Up With That. Why not do it? Are you scared? Of course not. You should continue to teach your students what you believe, and maybe pass on some lessons in diplomacy, which I know is a strong point of yours.
Lon

Lon Glazner
I thought Chico was in the business of turning undergraduates into model citizens.
So it would appear that The Great Debate is not about civility, reason and rhetorical argument, but simply indoctrination.
Very revealing!

Late to this party, but Anthony is right that the initial invitation should have specified what the ground rules of the debate were. That would have stopped it right there.
Anthony, not to pry, but would you be a candidate for a cochlear implant? My IT guy struggled for years with hearing aids and TTY phone calls, but now does much better with an implant. And of course Rush Limbaugh has one, too. He does say, though, that crowds in large rooms overwhelm it.
/Mr Lynn

You’re right about the Lincoln-Douglass debate. That’s what they are looking for. I’m a veteran of a number of these and by “civil” discourse they mean that no one participant should have any extra advantage to making their points. Visuals, especially professionally produced ones, might give the presenter an advantage in the eyes of those judging the debate. They believe it wouldn’t be “fair”. There would probably be other stipulations, as well, such as directly referring to your opponents in the debate in any way.
I’m not saying this debate style is right or wrong, but it is traditional, and yes, possibly archaic.

Anthony, I find it ironic that the ad grouping under your thread heading contained the following ad:
Powerpoint Slideshow
Create Voice-Enriched Presentations to Promote Your Expertise/Business!
my.Brainshark.com
Wow, is that a coincidence or what? Maybe Dr. Mark can click on it.

Any bets the AGW side is going to do exactly what you were told you could not do?

Mark said: “civic discourse, i.e.. talking, among first year students.”
Bush league sophomoric event. Anthony, stay home, you’ve gone far past that second rate institution… Mark, that’d be: civil discourse… What exactly, are the students going to learn…

I’ve come to this late but have to say I am with Anthony on this. If the event was a traditional “no visuals” debate then this should have been made explicit in the invitation. And given Anthony’s 85% hearing loss they should have made an exception for him.

“The Great Debate is meant to provide space for citizens to practice an older discourse form.”
Yeah, they want older forms that violate the disabilities act. I guess they just don’t want to accommodate the disabled at their facilities, even though they are already installed. If Stephen Hawking were skeptical of climate change they’d block off the wheelchair ramp.