COLLOQUY Responses
|
|
COLLOQUY Responses
|
 Recent deals and attempted deals involving Microsoft, where organizations have attempted to oust all other brands of operating systems, notably the situations at NASA's Johnson Space Center, Yale University, the University of Texas, and the University of California, have come under heavy criticism from both the communities involved and the public at large. Educators and technical consultants, as professionals who make their money from recommending the best course of action for their clients and students, should be extremely wary of committing themselves to any one interest. The loss of objectivity that such a commitment implies is likely to destroy the credibility we all labor so hard to earn. Accepting money from a company for favored consideration of its products is a clear conflict of interest, and should be avoided at all costs. I find the use of term "philanthropic" in the article fascinating. How can Microsoft's efforts to increase their profit base by restricting the availability of competing technologies possibly be considered "philanthropic?" While I certainly have no problem with Microsoft offering its products to the education community at a lower price in an effort to attract academic users, lower prices should not come as a result of subversive-fascist marketing tactics. Post-secondary education, has in recent years, come to embrace the market-driven economic model; this has the dangerous potential to create a society where academic achievement is measured not by one's level of knowledge, but by one's choice of brand image. The role of educators is to assist their student in furthering the sum of human knowledge, not to ignore or obscure valid methods of knowledge acquisition for the sake of greater profits.
|
IN THIS DEBATE: The question Background Responses Join the debate IN THIS SECTION: Colloquy Letters to the editor Write to us Help |
|||
|
||||
previous response