Duane, at: The conservative view of racism We've covered this ground in the past Duane, but let's try in again. Perhaps your critical thinking skills have improved as a result of your participation in the colorblind, fair debate you are defending. Your examples below are looking for intent to define racism. That is not what I'm talking about. If that means you can't take my claims seriously, so be it. The fact that an institution today treats everyone the same, doesn't mean that everyone is treated fairly, if the same institution created earlier inequalities just before starting to treat everyone the same. You have two kids. For grades 1-5 you lock one in the basement. Then in 6th grade you put them both in school. Do you think the court will say, "hey they are equal, they are both in school." I so tired of this ignorant, simplistic approach to race. If I ask you why the disparities created during segregation discussed in recent posts, which all are exactly like your examples below, impact how Black students must compete, even if other Black students choose to compete that way, I suspect you'll babble about how history is irrelevant. But because your critical thinking and research skills selectively examine the nature and history of the problem (which I suspect you do for any topic as a coach), doesn't make your righteous indignation a better substitute for the lack of objective investigation that you must engage in to come to your shallow conclusions. So let's here your answer. My first question: given that fast technical debate began during segregation, and that created an unjust privilege for the group creating the game, why should we not examine that history before discussing the "fairness" you believe exists today? at: I'm a victim As far as your language of being the victim, let's talk. I'm not a victim. I have been blessed with the opportunities and abilities that allowed me to overcome any vestiges of the race conscious discrimination called slavery and segregation. But I recognize that I am the exception and not the rule. So when I fight and speak regarding race, I do so recognizing the pain of racial stereotyping and offensive racial claims, effects me a lot less than many others. But when I talk about that pain you label me a victim. I don't debate, so the pain my students feel in debates is what I speak to and advocate on their behalf. I wonder does your pastor say that you should fight on behalf of others less fortunate than you? Your rhetoric, instead of focusing on whether my claims about offensiveness and insensitivity are "true", chooses to focus on me not being grateful because I complain too much, and because you've voted for teams that do things similar to what Louisville does, so be quiet and be grateful and play the game. The fact that minority policy impacts have a uniquely higher burden to win in a world where the decision calculus privileges the largest impact is ignored in your analysis. The circular trap created is that minority impacts can only win with the kritik, which requires an in round injury to the student involved. However, if I train students to make those arguments, they are "playing the victim." 2nd questions for you Duane: In a straight policy framework, absent a create, how does a small concrete empirical impact defeat a larger speculative one? How easy is it in the game of pretend debate to conjure up a big risk possibility that really isn't? How easy is it to divert any true notion of switch side debate by having an agent discussion that makes the impact invisible for the rest of the debate? How easy is it to K or PIC that impact out of existence? If a really, really care about an issue, and I want to debate it, let's look at the likelihood I'll get to debate it. First I need a topic that has some relationship to that interest. Then I am beholden to a topic committee and a vote to make sure my interests don't get left on the cutting room floor. Then if I get that far, I still need to figure out how to make my minority interests strategically beneficial. And after all of that, it's likely that the game will figure out a way to divert the issue entirely. But when I do get to run that case, and the negative chooses to engage, the arguments are usually offensive right wing arguments that while they embrace popular opinion, fail to muster any true academic merit: but work for a good spread dem out strategy. But you believe the world treats everyone in the game of debate the same? How about this? My team reached quarters in spite of the hurdles they had to overcome because they choose to try and be different in a community that you call colorblind and I call culturally assimilative. We train folks to all be the same, and you what to wave a flag as if that's a good thing. You want to erase difference when I talk about but celebrate it when you want to talk about it. Why don't I have the same right you have? If you talk about the benefits of the community's approach to race, why can't I talk about the problems? Is that not true policy making to discuss both? Has the possibility ever, ever crossed your mind that my experiences in this community from trying to be different, might make me the most qualified to come up with solutions for everyone regarding diversity in debate? Or can you only see my discussions of race as playing the victim? If you had a car break down, would you take it to the mechanic that said his only mechanic experiences were on cars that already worked, or would you take it to the person who talks about fixing broken cars? Why do my experiences, both good and bad, at being different, especially when you say I've produced so much good? Why do you assume that I can't be balanced and assume that I'm bias? What even makes you qualified to make such a judgement? Your limited experiences with watching difference in debates? Your ability to see a website with our 2004 record, with little first hand knowledge about what we do and how others respond, outside of e-debate discussions? What makes you more qualified than me on issues of difference Duane? I look forward to your answers. Ede Ede
>>> From: Duane Hyland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:Ede Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 11/16/2007 8:25 AM Subject: Re: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] The costs of a game, part 1: An unethical, amoral center Hi, Dr. Warner I'd take your claims a whole lot more seriously if you could produce the name of one tournament administrator who has denied your team's admittance to their tournaments. I'd take your claims a lot more seriously if you could show me one tournament that has decreed that African American debaters will have less prep time their white or Asian counterparts, if you could produce a single instance where your school was charged more to enter a tournament than another, or if you could show one instance of where your school's team was afforded less speaking time than the other's. Since you probably can't - your claims that there is somehow a racist conspiracy by THE MAN to hold y'all back are nonsense. When Louisville's football team takes the field they play football - you know, forward passing, off-tackle runs, the blitz..all of that stuff. And those games are governed by rules, and those rules are enforced by referees who are well trained in the rules of the game. Why in the name of God would you want your debaters to be judged by people not familiar with the activity or the rules? As an academic, wouldn't you want your teams judged by the very best judges, under the very best conditions? I mean what if your department hired someone off the street, with no academic credentials, to teach Comm Theory - wouldn't you be a bit resentful - I don't think you'd want your students, who you obviously love and esteem, exposed to anything less than a quality educator - why expo se them to anything less than a quality judge? I don't get you. I respect your work - and I've voted for numerous high school teams running the style of debate you've created - because I think debate is a contest of arguments and you vote for the best argument in the round...but I don't get how you think you're the victim some form of oppression - if memory serves correctly you had a team in the quarter-finals of the NDT a few years ago - now, I guess you could say that since that team didn't win the NDT there's a conspiracy against you and your team - but I would say that perhaps you should spend some time thinking about all the coaches in this nation who coach and who never have a team get that far - heck, who never get a team to the NDT - then maybe you'd see that you've been blessed not mistreated. My pastor always tells me that when you think the world is against you - look around and concentrate on what you've been blessed with, then the rest of it won't matter so much - maybe you should try it. H. "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankindÂ… If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill "Have a Cluckity, Cluck, Cluck Day" Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ( http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs )
_______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
