Communication Institute for Online Scholarship
 		Communication Institute for Online Scholarship Continous online service and innovation since 1986
Site index
  
ComAbstracts Visual Communication Concept Explorer Tables of Contents Electronic Journal of Communication ComVista

Your file request

Your CIOS file request: CRTNET hotline item 

-
Received:  by CIOS Mailer; Wednesday 7 May 2008 16:35:34
Date:         Wed, 7 May 2008 16:38:12 -0400
From: Crtnet News 
Subject: CRTNET: Announcements and queries #10397
To: CRTNET@LISTS.PSU.EDU

May 7, 2008, Number 10397

Communication Research and Theory Network a service of the National Communication Association www.natcom.org/CRTNET 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NCA Response to Mr. Doug Manchester's Contribution to Support a California Marriage Amendment, Roger Smitter

Hyatt's Response to Mr. Manchester's Contribution, Ted Kanatas

Re: CRTNET: Announcements and queries #10394, Janis Edwards

Re: CRTNET: Conferences & Calls #10395, Corwin King
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Smitter, rsmitter@natcom.org

NCA Response to Mr. Doug Manchester's Contribution to Support a California Marriage Amendment

The National Communication Association (NCA) is saddened and disappointed to learn about Mr. Doug Manchester's personal decision to contribute $125,000 in support of a ballot initiative to place a constitutional referendum banning gay and lesbian marriage on the California ballot in November.

NCA opposes efforts to eliminate or restrict diversity. Diversity enriches life's experiences and is essential to help people to communicate effectively in an increasingly complex and pluralistic world. Disenfranchisement of any group threatens and destroys the framework of open and free communication to which NCA is committed. NCA seeks to ensure, protect, nurture, and encourage the broadest range of participation for public discourse.

The NCA 2008 Annual Convention is planned to take place at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego, California in November and the hotel is owned by Mr. Manchester. NCA will honor its contract and hold the Annual Convention at the Manchester Grand Hyatt as scheduled. As a society of communication professionals, NCA affirms its longstanding obligation to study, encourage, and understand diversity and promote and provide platforms for open communication and debate.

NCA believes dialogue provides the first and best vehicle to address social issues. To help accomplish this goal, NCA will

*Host open forums to discuss and debate the issue on gay/lesbian marriage;
*Spotlight panels from the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer Unit;
*Send an open letter to Mr. Manchester further explaining NCA's views on diversity and the importance of communication;
*Invite Mr. Manchester to the Annual Convention to participate in panels and open discussion forums;
*Encourage and assist NCA members in California to host open forums and debates to educate voters on this issue before the November vote;
*Make available communication experts in family communication and Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer Communication Studies for community presentations and media outreach; 
*Disseminate Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer research found in NCA's journals.

NCA recognizes that its continued use of the property may result in some loss of participation in the convention. NCA does not want to lose the voices that would contribute to the diversity that is needed for effective academic engagement and vigorous public debate that NCA seeks to nurture on this and other issues.

NCA affirms its belief that the academic community has a responsibility to act to preserve the integrity of public dialogue, to promote full participation in academic meetings, and to preserve a tradition of public discussion and civic engagement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Kanatas, TKANATAS@hyatt.com


May 1, 2008


Mr. Roger Smitter, Executive Director
National Communication Association
1765 N. Street NW
Washington, DC  20036


Dear Mr. Smitter:

On behalf of the staff of Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego, we appreciate your business.

Hyatt does not share Mr. Manchester's views, and remains firmly committed to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community (GLBT).

San Diego's GLBT community benefits from Hyatt's successful operation of  Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego, in many ways:

*       Families of all full-time associates enjoy the option of receiving Domestic Partner Benefits, such as medical leave, bereavement pay and relocation expenses.

*        The hotel annually supports San Diego's Pride Festival, as well as the acclaimed Mama's Kitchen program and the Greater San Diego Business Association, the second largest gay and lesbian chamber of commerce in the nation.

As a result of Hyatt's ongoing support of the GLBT community, Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego is "TAG Approved" by the International Gay Lesbian Travel Association.  This is the respected designation confirming our commitment to enforce non-discriminatory policies.

Hyatt's dedication to the GLBT community has generated many accolades and recognition including:
*       The Human Rights Campaign honored Hyatt's respect for the GLBT community by placing Hyatt on its "2008 Best Places to Work" list, marking Hyatt's fifth consecutive year of being recognized among the GLBT community's most admired employers and attaining a 100% score in the annual survey.

*       PlanetOut named Hyatt "the best gay hotel collection" presenting Hyatt with the "PlanetOut Travel Award," the most prestigious honor for a hotelier's commitment to serving the GLBT community.

*       Advocate Magazine recently named Hyatt as one of the "Top-Ten Gay Friendly Employers in America".
*       DiversityInc.com rated Hyatt among the "Top Companies for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Employees in 2007.

Hyatt remains committed to the GLBT community, to ensure a welcoming atmosphere for diversity for all of our guests and associates.

Thank you for your ongoing support and we look forward to welcoming your convention in November. 

Sincerely,

Ted Kanatas
General Manager
Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Janis Edwards, jedwards@bama.ua.edu

Thanks to all who responded to my request earlier for resources on
teaching "Communication and the Environment." I am overflowing with
ideas and excited about putting it together and revisiting an old
field of mine from a new perspective. My geography and planning profs
would be proud (or maybe they would be wondering what took me so
long). Clearly, there are a lot of committed scholars in this area.

Janis Edwards
University of Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Corwin King, KingC@cwu.EDU

I haven't responded to CRTNET for some time (I've been on leave since June of last year), but Arthur Bochner's recent editorial in SPECTRA caught my attention. Briefly, he suggests that anonymous peer reviews of scholarly publications may be no better than "open" reviews, and in some cases may actually be worse.

I wonder if the same could be said about anonymous student reviews of faculty instruction? Yes, yes, I know the argument that students won't give accurate reviews unless their names are concealed, that they'll fear faculty reprisal, etc., etc., but as Bochner points out, that's not true of peer reviewed scholarship.  Yes, yes, I know many will claim the situations aren't the same, that students have more to fear from professors than colleagues have from each other, but is it any less intimidating to sign your name to a negative review of a powerful colleague than of a weak professor? That colleague, after all, may have influence over one's own scholarship, over tenure and promotion decisions, or advancement in professional organizations that's every bit as important to the reviewer as a course grade is to a student.

The fact is that while anonymous student reviews make intuitive sense, they, like anonymous peer reviews, may be based more on custom than evidence. Data on peer reviews shows that while signed reviews do tend to be slightly more positive than anonymous ones, they also tend to be more detailed, objective,  and focused on what a scholar can do to improve. Isn't that what we want from student reviews, too? Who hasn't received an anonymous screed from an obviously disgruntled student and wondered what it means? Perhaps requiring students to sign their reviews would cause them to think more carefully about what they're saying.

In an era when many institutions count favorable student evaluations as essential to faculty advancement, this is not a small matter, I believe. Surely, it's something to ponder.

Corwin King, Professor
Central Washington University
Ellensburg, WA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For questions regarding CRTNET, please contact the NCA National Office at crtnet@natcom.org  
 
Editor-in-Chief: Tom Benson, Penn State University

SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE: http://lists1.cac.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=crtnet&A=1  .

Subscriptions to CRTNET are free to all. For more information on CRTNET, visit the NCA web site at www.natcom.org/CRTNET.

SUBMISSIONS: Readers are encouraged to contribute abstracts, articles, announcements, comments, questions, and discussion on all topics relating to the general area of human communication. There is no charge for posting announcements, except for job ads. All submissions will be posted one time only. Direct all submissions to crtnet@natcom.org. Do not send e-mails to crtnet@lists.psu.edu.

POSITION ANNOUNCEMENTS: Are free to NCA departmental members and $100 for non-members. Non-members may join NCA before submitting their ad.

ARCHIVES: http://lists1.cac.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=crtnet  
 
The opinions expressed in CRTNET are those of the message authors and should not be taken as official positions of the National Communication Association.