It should be a patently obvious overstatement to note that the American Mensa Committee (AMC) makes assumptions. Many of you will suddenly and loudly exclaim, "Well, no s**t, Sherlock," or words to that effect. However, I state this because it is the basis for my opinion that the AMC really does need an official Heretic.
We currently have an Ombudsman and a Parliamentarian, both appointed by the AMC. As an official reality check for the AMC, we also need a Heretic. Since the AMC will likely view this position as the Official Pain-in-the-Ass, it must be an elected position and all candidates must run on petition. (Sorry, Nominating Committee, but I'm not sure you are really in a position to evaluate candidates for this office.) Out of necessity, the Heretic will have to work closely with American Mensa, Ltd. (AML) and Mensa International, Ltd. (MIL), both potential sources of data for AMC assumptions.
I was exposed to various assumptions throughout my two two-year terms as LocSec followed by two similar terms as Editor for Channel Islands Mensa. When I served briefly on AMC as Regional Vice Chairman 9 (RVC 9), I saw that I was on a committee of individuals who were mainly far removed from local groups, out of touch with the local groups' needs and wishes — even though they may have continued to attend local events. They might have been editors and LocSecs themselves, but it had been years previously. One could, of course, point to America's Congress or any state legislature and note the same thing, but AMC was never intended to be either of those things.
When I attended the Mensa 50th Anniversary celebration in London, I saw the Assumption Error at the International level, too. In London there was a presentation by some Internet weenies, many from France, who pointed out that there was a town in France where everyone had a computer and Internet access. There ensued a vigorous attempt to base much of the future direction of Mensa on the assumption that universal electronic access was true for all Mensans, an assumption that continues to this day. When I ran for RVC shortly after this, I was active in both my local Mensa group and in several local singles clubs. Fewer people in all these groups had computers than might have been expected, and not all of those with computers had Internet access.
Around this time, there were two other defining events for me. First, I served on the Newsletter Awards Committee, judging entries, and was exposed to local group newsletters of all types. Second, during my brief tenure as RVC 9, the AMC began adding more and more contests of this type, such as the Group of the Year Award, even though many of the groups had no interest in contests. As a former editor and LocSec, I could see that the leadership of Mensa was now a runaway train on the track to local group alienation.
While looking
for the "newsletter of the year," I saw newsletters that were
probably professionally typeset, newsletters that were created in the
old-fashioned way of typewriters and cut-and-paste — and everything
in between. But I continue to admire the typewritten newsletters, the
editors of which the AMC must consider Luddites. The simpler newsletters
often seem to have more functional content than the works of art of the
larger groups. As RVC, I found I could not communicate directly via the
Internet with one or two of my local groups, nor could I communicate that
way with one or two groups up in Region 8. Things may have changed since
then, but it was becoming apparent that in order to be a local editor,
you needed to have a computer, Internet access and a local group Web page.
The Local Secretary also needed a computer and access; yet in both cases
this served mainly the AMC and AML, not the local groups. Both the drive
toward a "winning" (fancy, full of graphics) newsletter and
the push for electronic communication between AMC and local groups narrowed
the number of members able to serve as local group officers. As RVC in
a hostile board environment, my attempts to dispel the assumption that
"everyone has a computer and Internet access" were futile. Perhaps
an elected Heretic would have a better chance at success; he or she would
certainly face a greater urgency regarding this particular assumption
and be confronted with additional assumptions that have been added with
increased reliance on electronic communication.
The hard copy/electronic debate first reared its ugly head back when I was RVC when it was time to update the Mensa Directory. The AMC was actually considering simply sending a CDROM to each member, extracting a promise that the information would not be used for commercial gain. It did not concern the AMC that not all members would have computers with CDROM drives in them; in fact, the official position on those members was along the lines of, "Let them eat cake." And here we are again, this time with newsletters, which is just why the article "Hard Copy, Revisited" (GF, Dec. 03) spun me up — not because I disagreed, but because I so totally agreed with it.
For the record, I own several computers and have many means of accessing the Internet, from home or at Cal Poly in my office or labs. In the latter, I have rapid, direct access, but at home I still use a 56K modem and dial-up. (Another assumption by Mensa is that everyone has a cable modem, DSL or some other high-speed Internet access.) Since I do not read the Bulletin from cover to cover (I scan it, but I don't stop to read everything), I certainly don't want to have to wait for the thing to download and then look at it in Adobe Reader. Through my work as a lecturer in Computer Science at Cal Poly, I review textbooks for publishers, and even those are sent to me as hard copy or a file I can print out. We are never going to be a paperless society; it is too damned hard to review a long document on a computer screen, one screen at a time.
Additional data that have not been carefully considered when making the assumption that electronic newsletters should be heavily promoted is that Mensans can be divided into three groups: belongers, readers, and participants. All of these are members. Belonger describes that group of people who do not participate in any activities or even read the newsletters. Readers are those members who peruse written matter from Mensa — anything from a quick glance to careful reading of every newsletter or notification. Participants are people who participate in any Mensa event, whether local, regional or national. Participants may be classified as such even if they don't show up physically for an event, but actively write for a newsletter. Unfortunately, it is only the participant group for which we have "data." It is alleged that only about 20% of our members are participants, which roughly matches what our local group experiences. Unless we survey everyone, we cannot determine how the remaining 80% of the members are divided between belongers and readers. But we can make further assumptions.
The readers may welcome an electronic newsletter since they can easily save and print out items of interest, assuming they have a computer and Internet access. The belongers would never bother logging onto a site to download the newsletter, since they won't bother to read it anyway. This group would probably be happy that they don't have to throw away or recycle more mail. The participants, were they to be consulted, would probably be about equally divided pro and con. I base this on an observation and assumption of my own — that not all participants have access (or don't want AMC or the local group to know they do, somewhat like having an unlisted phone number) and, of those who do, some will want to get e-copy and others will still want to have hard copy. But will the AMC see the reality of this, or will they continue to buy tickets for the runaway train? I can't answer that, but I will say that we clearly need an official Heretic to help the AMC in making decisions that affect all of us.
Should there be a Heretic at the International level? Should each country have its own Heretic? (The concept of an "emerging Heretic" for emerging Mensas delights me.) Should all International meetings include a meeting of the Heretics? And most importantly, if there should be a meeting of the Heretics, can we select one member to be burned at the stake in a grand sort of role reversal? Or might one Heretic also be a willing Martyr?!