Wednesday, September 27, 2006, 8:30:12 AM, you wrote:

>>And, I infer, that in either of the above definitions there are sanctions
>>that can be applied to those who don't follow the mandate .... I can't
>>imagine a tenured professor getting fired because he didn't put one
>>of his articles up under open access.

SW> Oh, no.  I see nothing in definition 2 (or even definition 1, for that
SW> matter) implying that the ability to enforce one's command, or
SW> impose sanctions if it is disobeyed, is a necessary feature of a
SW> "mandate."  Anyone can issue a "command" or "order", even
SW> without the authority or the desire to enforce it or punish violators
SW> (e.g., a child giving an order).  The fact that the profs wouldn't be
SW> fired wouldn't make it any less of a mandate.

Note that I didn't say the definitions SAID that there were sanctions,
but that I INFERRED that.  My inference is based upon experience in
the real world.  I'd say that a great many mandates in the academy
have sanctions: Thou shalt turn thy grades in on time or thy shall not
receive a paycheck.  Thou shalt publish one book or thy shall not
receive tenure.

And of course there are all sorts of them in "the real world", whether
with a court order, a subpoena, a speed limit, or vast numbers of
others.

SW> The earlier argument with the text of these "mandates" was much
SW> more persuasive.  Words such as "call upon," "encourage" or
SW> "urge" do certainly indicate optionality.  SW

Glad the first one was more persuasive.  Regardless, the US university
statements are certainly not mandates.

dan

--
Dan Lester, Data Wrangler  dan@RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho  83716-7115 USA
www.riverofdata.com  The Road Goes On Forever....