[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
> 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.
Is this really a crisis? I thought in your earlier post against
merger that you said diversity of alternatives was a sufficient
justification to avoid merger with NDT. What's wrong with Tuna's
prescription to let people vote with their feet?
> 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.
Well, there's the anatomy of a crisis for you. People choosing to do
something other than CEDA. So, CEDA splitting from NDT is positive
growth, but parli is a threat to the continued viability of CEDA?
People do parli because its fun and doesn't require dozens of hours a
week researching. How do you meet those demands in a way that won't
unnecessarily fragment CEDA even further? Nothing wrong with doing
NDT, CEDA and parli (as several Weber debaters do).
> 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.
Obviously, this is not new. I'm sure you remember the schism in NDT
between coaches and debaters over NDT judging disclosures. Coaches
will always be more conservative than debaters on issues pertaining
to debate style and format. This is the natural tension between
buffaloes and calves. This is not a clarion call for the recognition
of a crisis.
> 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.
Great. Reject merger because it might endanger alternative regional
styles of debate. Then implement a qualification system that will
also promote regional diversity and bring all parts of the CEDA
community together. Good luck - you'll need it! BTW, ever thought of
maybe looking at the grand failure of the NDT qualifying system?
Think twice about setting up methods of exclusion, lest the history
of NDT repeat itself in CEDA...
> 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.
I reject your call for organizational loyalty. The biggest problems
in debate are directly related to the attempts of organizational
hierarchs to preserve their side of the fence of forensics. I say let
the fences fall, so we can get together and debate. Every attempt to
save CEDA is just like every attempt to save NDT - foolish. The
results seldom pan out as intended. Let the activities evolve back
Michael "Bear" Bryant Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org
Director of Forensics Home: 801-399-4253
Department of Communication Office: 801-626-7186
Weber State University Fax: 801-626-7975
Ogden, UT 84408-1903
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page