Liberty vs. Dignity

As I work on my final project I’m doing some expanding of the research I did on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Right to be Forgotten decision. When I read research for my mini lit review many scholars made reference to the basic differences between the European concept of privacy and the US concept of privacy and I realized as I set out to present the case for my project that I really didn’t understand what those differences were. Here’s what I’ve learned so far.

Some scholars see modern European privacy laws as a reaction to the extreme violation of personal rights practiced by the Nazis on specific groups during World War II (Shaw, 2013). Others see older roots in aristocratic Europe when members of the privileged classes were able to defend their cultivated public images from intrusions by the press (Whitman, 2004). In both cases one’s persona is something one is entitled to protect and shield from embarrassment and humiliation and the biggest threat (these days) to that privacy is the media. This is privacy conceived as dignity (Whitman, 2004).

In the US privacy is rooted in the idea that you are protected from the government coming into your home and throwing its weight around. The term privacy invasion illustrates this threat quite clearly. We do not have protection against public humiliation and embarrassment precisely because we see freedom of the press as an important way in which we preserve our liberty from an over-zealous state.  This is privacy conceived as liberty (Whitman, 2004).

These two very different ideas about freedom cause frequent misunderstandings between two free cultures. Europeans are amazed that Americans allow the press to delve so far into the private sphere. Whitman (2004) uses the publicity surrounding the Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton affair as an example when Europeans think we have far overstepped the protection of peoples’ dignity. Whitman (2004) also reports that Europeans are amazed at American complacency in the face of the practice of credit reporting. They see making the financial information of individuals who have done nothing wrong available for inspection by merchants and banks as a flagrant violation of the privacy of one’s personal information.  

Americans are in turn astonished by European disregard for what they consider to be privacy in the practice of public nudity (Whitman, 2004). We, in fact, call those exposed body parts privates. The allowance of intrusions by government actors is where European concepts of privacy really depart from American ideas, though. In various European countries the government is allowed to regulate what parents can name their child (Dewey, 2013), wire-tap private conversations at far higher rates (Whitman, 2004), and require all citizens to formally register with the police when they move to a new place (Kluth, 2010).

Kluth, A. (2010). Privacy law: US “liberty” vs European “dignity”. Retrieved 8/22/2015 from: http://andreaskluth.org/2010/03/05/privacy-law-us-liberty-vs-european-dignity/

Shaw, T. (2013). The Privacy Advisor. Privacy Law and History: WWII – Forward. Retrieved 8/17/2015 from: https://iapp.org/news/a/2013-03-01-privacy-law-and-history-wwii-forward/.

Whitman, J. Q. (2004). Yale Law Journal.  The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty. Retrieved 8/17/2015 from: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1647&context=fss_papers

Dewey, C. (2013). Washington Post. 12 countries where the government regulates what you can name your child. Retrieved 8/17/2015 from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/03/12-countries-where-the-government-regulates-what-you-can-name-your-child/

It's All About the Feedback

When I read the responses of industry experts to the Pew Research Center’s survey titled The Future Impact of the Internet on Higher Education (2012), I was struck by the extent to which higher education is already being delivered in many new ways, with most of the innovation being connected to the internet. The survey asked experts to choose one of two scenarios that would best describe the changes they anticipated in the world of higher education by 2020. One scenario outlined modest changes involving increasing use of screens and wireless tech but with the majority of educational services delivered in-person on campus by lecture based classes. 39% of respondents chose this scenario. The radical change scenario proposed a higher ed world where distance learning and individualized instruction were the norm, with more mastery-based assessments. 60% of respondents chose this scenario as the one they believed to be more likely. 

 

Choosing between these scenarios was a starting point for the survey. Written response from experts was what Pew was really after. In their responses a significant number of those in the survey said they thought the true future lay somewhere between the two scenarios (Anderson, Boyles & Rainie, 2012).

Online learning platforms many include many
supports for student learning.

Without taking into account other reasons that traditional academic communities may be worth preserving, the second scenario simply sounds better for learners.
It is hard to get past the word “individualized” in the radical change scenario without calling this one a win for students. Instruction that assesses where you are and gives you scaffolded steps and support to move to the next level is a huge service to students. And it is much more precise than our current in-person instructional model of, “Got this pre-requisite? You can take this class.” 

At first glance one might not think “individualized” and “technology” are instructional words that go together. Doesn’t the word “technology” imply that we are putting students in a cold, impersonal environment? One might ask, “Don’t we have the best chance of meeting a student’s precise academic needs by having them meet personally with human experts who can assess their knowledge about a subject?” Well, maybe. IF we could afford to have that happen regularly and we could produce unbiased instructors whose primary interest was properly and carefully scaffolding learning for students at many entry points into their subjects. I think that is probably a rare scenario in higher ed. Yet, technological instruction can do this with infinite patience and great precision.

As a case in point, I look to a woman I tutor at Empire State College who has taken two introductory statistics classes. The first used an online test and homework application that provided instant grading, countless instructional videos and endless examples. She didn’t finish this class because she moves slowly through the material, so she took another course with a human instructor at a distance who offered no more feedback than “79% or 83%” on learning activities (multiple choice questions about readings) and that only after a couple of days. She has told me many times how she misses the instant feedback and instructional supports of the computer based homework and test system. Granted, this was an excellent online program vs. a lousy human instructor. The quality on each side could vary a lot, but this situation has sent me the clear message that as educators we need to think clearly about student experiences in technological environments and acknowledge the situations when they are better at what we do than we are.

Anderson, J.Q., Boyles, J.L. and Rainie, L. (2012). PewResearchCenter.  The future impact of the Internet on higher education: Experts expect more-efficient collaborative environments and new grading schemes; they worry about massive online courses, the shift away from on-campus life. Retrieved 8/19/2015 from: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Future_of_Higher_Ed.pdf