[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
response to wojtysiak
A few responses to your post:
>The meeting to which I was referring was the topic committee meeting,
>which was held during rounds and impossible for students to attend.
Nobody but the topic committee attended this meeting. None of the
coaches at the tournament attended this either. So if you were referring
to the topic meeting as an example of an impenetrable barrier between
coaches and students, this one doesn't make sense either. Also, Tuna
and others on the topic committee begged for weeks before Nationals
(on the L) for students, coaches, anyone to give them topic ideas and
suggestions about how to deal with the topic question. Your opportunity
for a voice was pretty dramatic.
> If coaches really do care about students, which of course they
>certainly do or they would not be involved with debate, why not
>welcome their involvement further, especially is this time of change? I'm
>only advocating increased student involvement.
See above. I don't know how much more invitation you need. As I, and
others have already indicated, I don't think you would have been
shushed if you'd attended the meeting and tried to speak. If you were
told this, you were misinformed.
>Again, this was my mistake, NOT Dr. Stepp's, and should not reflect
>upon her. As I had noted in my previous post, Dr. Stepp has made it
>perfectly clear that she cares deeply about student's opinions and
>wants us to verbalize and act upon them. Make us more accountable
>for the successes and failure of debate (like when we write stuff on
>the L that are incorrect).
I was not meaning to infer any criticism of Dr. Stepp. I look forward to
her service as CEDA president. I, too, was attempting to make sure that
conflict over the issue doesn't grow through misinformation.
>Why didn't more coaches attend the student meeting? Surely, students
>are equally receptive to the unique insight of those individuals involved
>in the activity longer than we. And why did the yearlong topic get
>passed when the students unanimously voted for the mid-year
Why didn't more students attend? The timing of the meeting was
abysmal. It occured during registration and during a time when all teams
were under a 10:00PM deadline to get strike sheets in. With over 150
judges in the pool, many of whom were not known by the teams, I
certainly counseled our teams to work on the strike lists ands not to be at
the meeting until they had finished tournament related work. Our school
invested a pretty healthy chunk of change to send teams to nats, our
first committment was to the tournament.
>Try to remember too the possible backlash students face when they do
>speak out. Debaters risk alienating potential judges with their expressed
>viewpoints. Is this a little paranoid? Perhaps, but it does also exist.
Argumentum ad vericundium. Reliance on the unidentified source is
hardly compelling. Give me some examples of where coaches have
backlashed against a student expressing a opinion about a year long
topic, one toppic vs. two, etc.
> Isaac, and all the student reps deserve our respect. After all, they are
>the ones trying to get a student on the topic committee.
>Again, I'm only trying to make the point that perhaps what CEDA needs
i>s to grant a little more authority to the student reps so that even more
>can be accomplished, as Will's posting advocated. And that debaters
>who are not representatives should still be involved as much as
>possible as well.
I think most of us would welcome increased student participation. To
assert that because the organization didn't vote the same way the
students did is symbolic of an uncaring attitude is pretty repugnant. At
least 390 students were at nationals and only about 25 were at the
student meeting. To think that 25 is representative of all the students
needs some serious proof. Most of us cast our votes after having
discussions with our students and certainly tried to take their needs into
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page