Re: No Standards for Context?

[Steven Hunt <hunt@lclark.edu>]

> 
> I found one section of the statement provided by Greg Simerly quite 
> interesting.  I believe it was section one subsection c.  It essentially 
> said all evidence must be research etc by the students.  Fascinating, 
> what then do we do with all of the DOF's, coaches, assistant coaches, 
> graduate assistants, and reserach assistants who currently cut cards?  
> Everyone knows it is a widespread practice.  So why, if it is supposedly 
> against the rules do we as a community seeking to expand out "ethics" 
> allow such a practice to occur?  Just curious.
> 
> John Johnston
> 

The current code is aspirational.  However, I think that we should strive 
to practice within that code based upon the principles it reflects.  
The practice may be widespread, but that only means, from the point of 
view of those who share these values, that there is widespread violation 
of ethical principles.

I think it is more important to understand the values behind the 
principles.  There seem to be at least two.  One, the coach should not 
supplant the debater because a lot of in-depth educational value is 
lost.  I know that most debaters will learn a lot more about the topics 
and will understand the arguments much more thoroughly and be able to 
defend them more effectively when they have done the research.  I 
remember a former pair of debaters from a national championship program 
in the 80's who apologized to me for stumbling over their 1ac because 
they could not read their coaches' handwriting.  Obviously, these 
debaters neither understood their case (they lost the round) and they did 
not understand what I consider their role to be as debaters.  I believe 
that the practice is now out of control and we probably are expanding 
outside of our ethical principles.  I expect also that a number of people 
will argue with the principles not because they really think they are 
ethically correct, but because behaviors do often generate attitudes.  As 
the psychologist Bem says we like tennis because we play it; we not play 
tennis because we like it.

Two, the other reason seems to be the idea of fair ground and level 
playing field.  Programs which have coaches and sometimes dedicated 
assistants to do research will almost always win over programs who 
require debaters to do the research.  Just hypothetically, when a program 
has five six coaches to support one or two teams and those coaches do 
most or even much of the research then, there will be few squads if any 
that can compete.  

Finally, let me say that limited assistance with research does not in my 
mind violate the principle.  I help my debaters with some research, but 
it is a very small part and often for modeling purposes that I help.  I 
think other coaches who are helping in limited ways are also not 
violating the principle.    

Russ Church

---

References:

• No Standards for Context?
• From: Kenneth Broda-Bahm <broda@midget.towson.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Re ethics and action
• Next by Date: Reply to Lechtreck re ethics and action
• Prev by thread: No Standards for Context?
• Next by thread: Reply to Lechtreck re ethics and action
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page