Question #1-- Several national tournaments have recently enacted policies that preclude the public posting of video-recorded debates, but allow for "private sharing". Whether that sharing is limited to the college community, or might include interested high school debaters, etc., remains unclear. 1. What is your opinion about having a similar policy for CEDA Nationals?
CEDA Nationals should definitely have a “recording and usage” policy for its tournament, and should make available a sample “recording consent form” for others running tournaments to use as a source document when creating their own policies. It was my understanding that we had begun discussion of such a policy for CEDA Nats as last summer’s meeting in the hope of having a clear policy for the 2009 tournament. Regardless of individual views on the needed breadth or limits of video recording at CEDA Nats and other tournaments, as our “product”, and as the only event that the EC has direct authority over, CEDA should establish a policy regarding the distribution of its “debates” from that particular event, similar to the way other educational and non-profit institutions exercise their rights over their events. 2. What limitations do you think should exist, if any, on sharing video with high school debaters or others outside the CEDA community? I think individual participating schools, who are probably governed by their own university policies, and host schools, who are probably governed by their own events policies, should be given an understanding of how video is to be used, and should be able to establish limitations if the intended use goes beyond “closed” team usage. I think there has been an assumption of “personal use” for a long time in our community that has been exceeded by the technology to distribute recorded material. While there is a great educational value to being able to share debates across regions, levels, and time through video, it should always be tempered with the individual needs and limitations of programs and the institutions that fund and support them. As a former high school teacher and coach, I don't think there will be a large uproar if the college debate community had one less influence on the high school debate community based on the decade of feedback I received from my colleagues. Finally, anyone who uses debate videos in a potentially profit generating venue (i.e.: camps), should make that clear to the potential participants. 3. How should such policies intersect with programs who assert their policy is not to allow their debaters to be video-recorded? I think any debater and any program has the right to decide not to be recorded. When I attended a series of the NDT Committee meetings where the original SCTV contracts were discussed, it became apparent that there are a variety of conditions that affect the desirability of filming for individual students. One obvious example is establishing the parameters of when the “debate” occurs – for SCTV pre-round prep was the issue of contention, more recently it has been the post-round critiques. Other issues that were discussed included psychological impacts and safety concerns for certain students. As someone who was under 18 when they joined debate in college, I had issues signing my own travel consent forms under university policy, which leads me to believe that we probably haven’t explored all of the implications of filming students who are potentially legal minors. Most importantly, while under no circumstances do I think we have something to hide as an activity, I think protecting the safe space of debate rounds as laboratories of free speech for our students from all our member institutions means protecting them from the misappropriation or miscontextualization of the content of their speeches. A simple example is how a “politics” debate may be interpreted out of context for one of our students who attends one of the military academies. They debate in uniform, they have long term careers in the armed forces, let alone the immediate five year minimum, and they are not always going to have the luxury of an audience who understands “commander-in-chief bad” is a block required by switch side debate. Also, as someone who has had a school’s “no video” policy intentionally ignored this year, I can speak to how difficult it is to “un-ring the bell” once video has been distributed (and honestly, it wasn’t a bad video, it’s more an issue of principle for us). The only way to ensure that a debate video isn’t published is to not have it in the first place, which is why the right to not be taped should be presented. The issue is more nuanced than free speech and PR, and the policies we create and endorse should recognize that. Anyone who thinks there is a clear brightline or this is a simple issue of freedoms and standing behind what we do is kidding themselves. Question #2-- Assume there is some glimmer of possibility for a program to emerge (students seeking to establish one, a faculty member trying to get it started, etc.). What sort of support, in the form of information, letter writing, sending in outsiders, etc., should CEDA provide? The first kind of support that CEDA should provide is the type of support that is requested, because the answer is NOT the same for all institutions. At a minimum, CEDA should alert potential new programs to the existing types of support we provide: constitutionally waived fees, the backfile project, and the leadership sample documents we have provided in the past. We should also identify the most logistically feasible tournaments for the program based on the calendar for the year. CEDA should ensure that the Regional Representative is aware of the emerging program, and facilitate contact if that has not already occurred. Also, identifying either a local program or a willing electronic mentor to assist the new program with more immediate questions would be beneficial. Finally, if those who are beginning the program feel it would be beneficial, the CEDA EC should write a letter to the significant administrative office for the program (i.e.: student activities, department, President, etc.). In general, it might be advisable for CEDA to have an official “welcoming” document, letter, or kit for new programs from the EC. Question #3-- Some would like to see CEDA Nationals attended by most or all NDT 1st round teams. 1. Do you think this is an important objective? Honestly, of all of the things we could be focusing on (new programs, more debaters, better PR, debate in a world of emerging technology, the need for professional opportunities, budget cuts, increasing research in our field, diversity, etc), this is probably not my first priority for CEDA. It would be nice to have closer to 16 than 6 First rounds attend, but two (or three) National championships is incredibly expensive, and a lot to ask of programs. And why do we only care about the first rounds? I think the other 50-someodd teams are important too. I'm not the person to ask to acquiesce for the sake of the death drive. 2. What actions would you take to pursue it? I believe the general consensus is that when CEDA occurs after the NDT it does increase attendance by “NDT” teams because it’s another chance for those who didn’t quite finish the season the way they wanted to. I’m not sure if the data holds up, but I think obviously having CEDA Nats and the NDT in the same city would probably assist the cause by eliminating some travel costs for those teams. I think the recent initiative to confirm CEDA Nats hosts earlier would assist in this as well, and I would hope to have initial bids for the 2012 CEDA Nats by the end of my year as 2VP. These are things that would probably have a positive result in this area, but that would not be the goal. I just happen to think ending the year on the all-inclusive tournament makes competitive and community sense. 3. What changes in the tournament wouI’m not sure changes in CEDA Nats itself would solve the perceived problem, beyond the scheduling issues discussed above. Question #4-- How do you feel about having electronic business meetings to allow those of us who cannot attend nca an opportunity to participate more in ceda? (eg via an online bulletin board, via edebate/ceda-l, etc.) It would be fantastic to have the same electronic access for our membership at NCA that we have during the Summer Meeting. I think a discussion board or blog via the CEDA website would be a good initial start, potentially being updated as we go by the recording secretary. Establishing a video feed would be ideal, but I also think updates from officers posted at the end of each day, in addition to Regional Rep updates would assist in giving more access to those not able to attend. This year I tried a very low-tech implementation of regional involvement and updates because the Northeast was both geographically distant from NCA and the majority of schools were attending a tournament that weekend. I not only sent an update after the EC meeting on Friday to my region, and highlighted agenda items for the following day’s business meeting, but I used my gmail/AIM status message to post what items we were covering in real time in case anyone wanted to indicate an immediate comment or question. I was then able to receive feedback from other directors through both email and chat, and I solicited direct opinions when I thought they were relevant. Additionally, we may want to inquire about the size of the room assigned for both the EC and Business Meetings at NCA by those in charge. I’m not sure we would have had room for video capabilities this year, although it’s one way to encourage community bonding. Question #5-- What will each of you do to help revive programs at smaller colleges who have lost their programs either by funding shortfalls or administration apathy? This is why I emphasized a need to focus on program retention in my original candidate statement, because while I think we’ve made admirable improvements in development initiatives, those don’t necessarily translate to retention measures. The first thing is to identify the specific reasons for individual program loss –because ameliorating a loss of support is a very different proposition if it’s administrative priority versus fiscal. For programs who have lost funding, perhaps reestablishing them as “new programs”, creating non travel debate opportunities, or assisting them with increasing funds through hosting would be of assistance. For those who have lost administrative support, perhaps identifying another part of the school to administer the program (department versus student activities) or working with local allies to allow some opportunities for students to regenerate interest through participation would be the starting points. And of course, if all else fails, I can always invite them to join the Coalition. (This is a joke solely for my amusement at Will Baker’s expense). Question #6-- Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? I don’t think CEDA should regulate argument content beyond established evidentiary ethics considerations. Fundamentally, that is not how the activity is perceived in “CEDA” historically. Debaters can debate about the content issues – and I’ll double check the profanity K links are in the backfile project. I think there are different educational models that debate can follow, and the history of CEDA is one of open discourse. I think content limitations would be more appropriate in the educational and organizational model that the ADA is founded upon (for the record, it’s rule #6 in their standing rules that says T is a voter, although the criteria for voting on a kritik advocated by the aff are not listed. Uniqueness and alternatives seem to only be a burden of the neg). I think harassment issWhat should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" (Hi Jimbo.) The best place to work with the NDT on the issues of convergence and electronic eloquence are at the topic meeting, which is our only "official" cooperative action and which has seen the most progress in these fields over the last 3 years. Using the Topic Meeting, the CEDA Summer Meeting (and potentially NCA), and the upcoming conference hosted by Wake may be the best option to serve as a "testing ground" in these fields. More students, perhaps using the Presidential Intern model established in 2005, could be involved in the technological production aspects of these existing approaches, rather than simply seen as a "host" duty. I think the biggest obstacle for CEDA programs in this area is that what we are seeing is a reflection of the larger comm community focus - it's departmental and curricular priorities. I think encouraging programs to engage in public debates about issues of importance to their communities, and to explore inter-school electronic debates, as some programs do, may be the best approach within those limitations. One other suggestion would be to target emerging programs or those with reduced budgets to explore electronic production to expand debate opportunities from their school to other campuses. Finally, I think it is important to emphasize the eloquence and production value component of any such initiatives - the point is to develop better skills than most amateur youTube postings, right? Doing production for production's sake is irrelevant unless actual skills are developed. Multiple individuals have advocated positive PR measures for our activity, including promoting debates, advertising our "success stories", and using our awards ceremonies as source material for positive press. These initiatives would also be excellent opportunities to provide production experiences for our community in conjunction with broader goals. Question #8-- Describe your ideal debate round, team, squad, tournament, and community. I think for the role of CEDA 2VP (and eventually 1VP and Pres), my opinion on community is probably the most important. I suppose my ideal debate community would be much like my favorite Coalition bus trips - the Ivy league team, the "private" institution, a Jesuit school, some village hippies, and the City University packing uniqueness updates, Zizek, Heg good, and wacky critical arg du jour learning from each other and enjoying some friendly competition (although, ideally, without the bus). It makes me very fortunate, because in many ways the team(s) I work with already is my ideal squad - valuing new debaters and continuing debaters, and trying to provide opportunities for as many students from as many backgrounds as possible. Every time we have a team party or picture, I am immensely proud of the organizations and students I work with, most of which is possible because of our dedication not only to education and excellence, but to diversity of student experiences and ideas. As for my ideal round - there is a reason I like judging novices, and it's not about my flow. My favorite rounds are the ones where you can literally see the light bulb go off for a debater, where they realize something for the first time. That's the exciting part of this activity year after year. The first time a new strat really works, or a new debater "gets" the game or really learns something - those are the best rounds (although I'll take a well informed K throwdown, or some solid DA internal links any day, as long as no oneMy ideal tournaments have large novice divisions, emerging JV debates, and top level open argumentation (yes, that's 3 divisions). I'm ok without MPJ (I like teaching adaptation), but limited strikes are probably ideal. Time for educational opportunities is important - be it post round discussions, diversity of args, or novice teach-ins. We also need a chance to get to know each other as a community, although I think down time is probably more efficient for that than banquets. In an ideal world, my team needs to do limited navigation at a tournament, but that's just because we're a little unfamiliar with the idea of a proper campus. Question #9-- What would you do to try and increase the number of teams participating at CEDA Nationals? This issue is one of the reasons I volunteered for the reconstituted Hosting Committee this fall at NCA. First, we need early planning to maximize cost options. Second, as mentioned on the NDT question above, timing and travel cost minimization so that70+ teams don’t have to choose between their national championships would also help. Included with that, the overall scheduling conversation that Gordon has suggested needs to be pursued, not just because of the NDT issue, but also because ADA Nationals scheduling can have an effect (and I want bonus points for ADA inclusion twice in my answers even though no one remembered them in the questions). Third, I think Pocatello’s multiple housing options and Berkeley’s discussions related to local transportation are the beginning of the kind of productive and innovative cost reduction strategies offered by hosts that we need to pursue EVERY year, and we need to identify potential hosts we could assist with cost effective ideas. But most importantly, increasing the number of teams actually DEBATING, not only at a National Championship, but over the year, and increasing our membership, are really the important goals, because CEDA is about much more that running a national tournament. The novice break-out this year was one measure instituted to assist programs in justifying CEDA Nats for their budget, but I think CEDA Nats is about more than awards. I think it should be about not only celebrating our community, but allowing our students and our coaches to connect as part of that community. My most important memories from the only CEDA Nats I attended as a debater were not about the rounds I won or lost, but they were about confirming my connection to my peers and celebrating with those I had learned from. Debate should be fun, and CEDA Nats should be a place where we come together and celebrate with each other. I have a simple assumption about debate - you need opponents to have another side. That means no matter the competitive nature of our activity, at some point we need to always remember we need each other. Question #10-- What should CEDA do to revitalize Regional Debate? Oh, where to start? As a preface, I don’t think it should be “Coalitions for all” (because most of you are not that masochistic). But I do think it requires working together, as I mentioned above. I think it requires targeting new program development to a degree, looking at geography so that existing programs acquire more regional opportunities, which also would guarantee support for the emerging program. I think a larger calendar discussion needs to occur with CEDA – a process I’m familiar with regionally and would be more than happy to assist with nationally. I think we need to accept that the world of “merger 2.0” means asking for accountability from the “National” schedule in how it affects “regional” schedules – something that might be possible if the proposal for a “tournament committee” that was suggested at the NDT Committee meeting at NCA moved forward (and so I’ll add that the NDT Chair nominations should not only include the qualification of TACT, but also of understanding the bigger debate picture, and CEDA should in some sense lobby to be included in this discussion if it comes to pass). Ultimately, I think it will tournaments are nice, but if there are 6 prelims you won’t be able to attract many open teams who are looking for rounds for their District Qualifier, so tweaking schedules can't be the only answer (even if you can go home to your puppy more). I know from the multiple conversations I’ve had at national meetings that my particular regional experiences don’t translate across geography, so other approaches may be needed. It may be as simple as giving existing schools an incentive to host for others (such as Idaho did in preparation for Nationals this year creating a new local debate opportunity); it may be as complicated as working to build entire new programs. Most importantly, I will go on record to say that I think the Regional Rep role should be not only empowered, but encouraged to move debate in their region forward. At NCA it was clarified that the official role of the regional rep was simply a democratic representation guarantee – I think it needs to be more than that. I think those of us who are fortunate to be in communities where there is strong regional debate have expectations of their rep that fall into the categories of scheduling and program support, and I think one of the most important things that needs to occur over the next 5 years is establishing protocols and procedures for Reps to assist them in this process. _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
