CRISIS

[GMILLER@UCSVAX.SDSU.EDU]

I think that it is time that the leadership and participants of CEDA
acknowledge a number of deep-seated conflicts that are tearing this
organization apart.  I guess my argument starts with an assumption that
CEDA should continue to exist in some form...maybe somewhat different
than currently exists.  

Crisis Issues

1. The emergence of multiple forms of debate.  While I would never want
to administratively discourage alternative forms of debate, we need
to acknowledge those individuals who are embracing these form, e.g.,
parliamentary.  I was amazed at the number of parliamentary teams
in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions.  The participants
in NEDA are also examples of individuals leaving our organization.
Someone needs to either address the issues that are causing people
to leave or accept the inevitable decline in CEDA participation.

2. Mutual Preference Judging.  While most of the debate regarding the
subject revolved around issues of merit, there appears to be a significant
gap between coaches and debaters.  For example, the Bahm study reported that
a significant number of debaters supported mutual preference judging.  In
addition, there seems to be massive anecdotal evidence on ceda-l and at
tournaments that people want some type of control over judging at nationals.
I would acknowledge the argument that my sample is skewed and perhaps
unrepresentative of the larger community.  However, we must also acknowledge
that coaches and debaters seem to want a signficantly different activity.
Is this new?  Probably not.  However, this issue appears to demonstrate
the significant differences in philosophy over the goals of the activity.

3. CEDA Nationals.  Every year we have the renewed discussion of an
open CEDA.  Given the administrative burden of running and organizing the
event, I may have a renewed interest in some type of discussion of this
issue.  Should teams "deserve" to attend nationals.  While we can celebrate
the philosophy of open access, we must also remember the teams eliminated
in triples and doubles who did not avoid the minefields.  True, this argument
assumes that the more teams the more randomness in judging.  While I am
trying to avoid taking an explicit stand on this issue, I think it is one 
of the many issues that we continue to ignore.

Overall, I believe this organization is in a crisis.  While our membership
may be roughly where it was a year ago, I believe this is poor evidence
of the state of this organizations health.  People are leaving.  Several
individuals seem to be willing to switch to parliamentary.  Moreover, teams
which have not done NDT in 10 years are now openly talking about going back.
There is discussion of a northwest return to NDT, more teams in the 
southern california and the rocky mountains are hinting of a switch to NDT.
Somebody needs to be proactive about addressing a variety of deep seated 
problems of philosophy and practice (including the two topic system).
Our differences may be our strengths, but only if people stay in the
organization.  If people leave (which they are) then these differences become
problems that somebody in this organization should address.

Just some thoughts,

Greg Miller
SDSU

---

• Prev by Date: Merger
• Next by Date: 13th National Debate Institute, University of Vermont
• Prev by thread: Re: Merger
• Next by thread: Re: CRISIS
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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