[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: new organization

Response to Michael Korcok, cc to all.

Prof. Korcok argues
	It's important to maintain community, to teach our students the 
importance of argument.  Additionally, threatening to leave is tantamount 
to blackmail.

First, I appreciate all Mike has been doing to encourage dialogue.  His 
efforts to keep valuable argument on CEDA-L have been a genuine binding 
influence on the debate organization.  For me to come along and make my 
cynical arguments may seem to demean his efforts.  I certainly didn't 
mean to communicate that.  I really do appreciate this forum and his 
tireless efforts to engage the community in dialogue.  It's wonderful.

Second, I'm not voting with my feet.  I'm wondering whether I should.  
I'm doing EXACTLY what Mike suggests: using the forum of argument in 
(hopefully) a productive manner.  I want to hear what the greater CEDA 
community thinks.  I want to give them a chance to talk me out of voting 
with my feet.  So, I hope this is NOT seen as BLACKMAIL, but rather as a 
genuine attempt to engage in argument.

Third, HOWEVER, I don't feel people should commit to community and 
argument at all costs.  Although Mike's comments are certainly 
noteworthy, there are communities to which I wouldn't belong.  I'm not 
going to join a Polka Club, realize I'm in the wrong place, and stay 
anyway because of my commitment to music.  If I want to listen to and 
play classical music, and I want my students to learn classical music, 
I'm going to join a classical music club.  If no classical music club 
exists, I'm going to start one.

Fourth, the real question for me is this:  Is CEDA an open system that is 
capable of the genuine kinds of argument to which Prof. Korcok refers?  
Past history would indicate that it is.  CEDA has always been willing to 
debate issues.  Voting on proposals has always been done with sincerity 
and openness.  My worry is that I've been hearing debate coaches since my 
entrance into CEDA in 1980, nearly a decade and a half, say how committed 
they are to the principles of CEDA, but yet see the principles of CEDA 
eroded by the realities of WHAT WINS ROUNDS.  I've seen debate coaches 
AND STUDENTS champion CEDA's founding principles only to be made fun of 
by others or to have their decisions in rounds questioned tournament 
after tournament.  These are the things that trouble me.  These are the 
things that make me question whether genuine argument is possible or 
whether genuine argument will actually change things.

Thanks Mike for your thoughtful reply.  I agree with your principles, but 
I don't feel I'm violating them.  I want to believe in the community of 
debate, but if the community is only going to give lip service to its 
founding principles, and a decade and a half of tireless effort by others 
to keep the activity manageable has failed---I just wonder where 
we're headed.

If I can't find classical music for my students within CEDA, I'm not 
going to subject them to a Polka tournament.  I feel I have the right at 
that point to discuss with others the possibility of a new national 
organization.  Then those who want to play polka may; those who wish to 
play classical may.  Then the principles of argument and community would 
make much more sense.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page