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

Paternalism and CEDA


I never thought you would put yourself in such a corner.

On Wed, 22 Feb 1995 MRCrossman@aol.com wrote:

> Never let it be said that I "shy away from the tough issues".You are probably
> right Matt when you indicate that my tone is frequently "paternalistic".  You
> would probably also be correct if you argued, and I assume you would, that
> such a tone would be useless. I would contend, however, that lack of
> paternalism has lead the organization into the hole that it is in now.

Mark, you shy away from tough issues when you insist on being a filter 
for what people learn so you never have to come face to face with ideas 
you might find threatening.  This *lack of paternalism* you detest may be 
the part of the reason for the crisis of our organization, however the 
community would be dead if its foundations and mores weren't called into 
question by using the very forum it spawned, the debate round.  The round 
is not the idealistic dialectic.  We can never find truth with a capital 
T when there are at least five individuals attempting to engage in it.  
The *dialogics* of the round lays open the meaning by which community 
consensus can be informed.  I believe it is important for there to be 
theory written and discussed outside the debate context in regards to the 
context, however when only seeking a view from the outside you exclude 
the individual.  You might not find this compelling since your worldview 
seems to be one of keeping thought in box so that only a few can see it. 



>I'm
> still of the belief that there is a difference between coaches and students
> and CEDA has too long let the cart drive the horse. 

What does this mean?  I've heard you say this before but never really 
explain what the assumptions behind this are.  Additionally, what is 
the intrinsic difference between coaches and students?  And why should a 
paradigm that a student introduces be dismissed simply because that 
individual is not a coach? 

To preempt what I may believe your responses to be: The *real world* does 
require us as effective communicators to assume the audience in our 
speech act, yet the *real world* also is not so *real* if we simply 
follow the horse around the barnyard without questioning why the horse 
keeps stepping in its own excrement.


> In terms of my tendency
> to "poke fun" at issues, I frankly find some of these "issues" funny.  Most
> of the positions, the women vs womyn thing for example, are arguments that
> only academics would make and that the average person could frankly care less
> about. I think education misses the point when it isn't aimed at training
> people to live in the real world, that is one of the reasons I dismiss the
> games paradigm.

What the hell does the games paradigm have to do with anything?  I would 
offer that the games paradigm is the one that would most fit with your 
worldview.  It provides for the *real world* application of attempting to 
set rules for the game (life) and attempting to win at all costs. (as you 
assume the games paradigm to be.  I think however you might be referring 
more to a tabula rasa critic, whatever that is, than to games. *this 
disclaimer was inserted as to not incur the rath of Tuna.* ) 

I would never ask to restrict your discourse, however I would think it in 
your best interest to exude respect toward other worldviews rather than 
just make fun of them as if they didn't exist.  For when you act as if 
they have no legitimacy without some justification your analysis seems 
rather shallow and trite. 

> Which, of course, leads me to your question concerning what "philosophies I
> don't think are worth teaching novices". I think many people have gone
> overboard with the games in CEDA.I understand that critique positions and
> post modernism are positions that you enjoy but I hope you can understand
> that most novices come into the activity with the presumption that they are
> going to be learning more useful things.

This sounds as if you would rather not teach students of yours about what 
it is to question the assumptions behind issues.  Instead of prearing the 
*novices* for the *real world* you teach them to to blindly follow 
because of personal gain.  What are useful things?  I would argue it is 
useful to  be able to think about the world.  To construct a worldview 
instead of having one spoon fed to you.  And to make decisions with multiple 
levels of understanding. 

On the subject of critiques and postmodernism.  I find it unfathomable to 
say that novices wouldn't find it useful to have there minds blown a 
little bit to shake there foundations.  It can only have positive 
results.  They will either be able to justify why they believe what they 
do or be freed up to think for themselves.  The latter may be a 
frightening prospect for someone that doesn't respect diversity.

> I really believe that you can tell
> the wisdom of something by looking at the "fruit" that is derived from
> it.

Wisdom? I'm amazed.  You may be able to determine the benifits and risks 
in tangible temporally inconstant ways.  But my reading of *wisdom* is 
that it would entail having a holistic approach to a phenomena so as to 
understand it fully (means and ends) before, during, and after acting.


> What has been the benefit of the games perspective?

I think you are confused.  The decision to argue critiques by most 
individuals I know is based in a deep seated belief.  If they are not 
than the delivery of such comes off rather weak.  If you mean *What has 
been the benefit of arguing critiques?*  I would say that novices learn 
about critical thinking and the assumptions behind that which they and 
others in the *real world* act upon. 

> Clearly teams are
> leaving the organization.The teams that tend to be successful are those that
> have had extensive high school and four year experience, in most cases
> abusing their eligibility.

Mark, When was the last time you were at a consistent number of national 
tournaments so as to inform your opinion?  There is not a flood of teams 
leaving the organization instead I would argue it is a trickle.  The 
community is still viable and those that feel threatened by it are 
leaving.  But I don't think they are to find solace anywhere else.  If 
you haven't heard NDT is running a few things a bit more progressive than 
CEDA right now.  In the risk of assuming that I have been relatively 
successful to when I first began in the activity, I did not have 
extensive high school experience.  I could count the number of 
tournaments I attended in high school on one hand.  And Pat, my partner, 
who is one of the best 1ars in the business had no high school 
experience.  As to the eligibility issue I could only speak for myself.  
I have sat out a number of semesters do to the need to support myself 
financially.  The idea of abusing eligibility is one of a completely 
other discussion.


> You can pretty much write CA off 
> from the late out
> roundd at CEDA nats because the CA circuit tends to lack the high school
> experience, and most of us tell our people to graduate earlier than some of
> their colleagues.

I would submit that those schools that do not have viable teams in CA 
have more pressing problems than lack of high school experience.  The 
first is the budget crisis that is sweeping the nation and from 
experience here in CA.  This disallows a lot of teams from being able to 
travel the circuit enough to get in many rounds on the topic.  Secondly, 
some of the best high school programs in the country are in the SF bay 
area. And those students that stay in CA to go to school are sometimes 
dismayed by the level of competition in CA.  That brings me to my third, 
the paternalism that you are exhibiting stifles the ability to argue 
things that are being run on the national circuit. Even if you disagree 
that these positions are appropriate for this environment, burying your 
head in the sand does not make them go away.  I am not saying that all of 
CA exhibits your attitude but there are enough to make it difficult for 
those on the CA circuit to experience the type of critics they will find 
at the national level.  This does not mean that local circuits should 
mirror the national.  But just that they need to recognize how their 
idiosyncracies affect the debaters that come from there. 

> Yeah, I take my role in this pretty seriously.It is how I make a living.I
> kind of hoped that the organization would be around a few more years and that
> I could support it as an educational experience.I get really pissed when I
> take new people to an LD round and it isn't intelligible (happened last
> weekend).

I hope that you do not take your role seriously simply because it is how 
you make a living, I doubt that this is the case.  Unintelligible debate 
can happen at any speed.  Anytime someone is exposed to a new way of 
thinking I submit that is an educational experience.

> Back to the paternalism thing, frankly Matt-and I don't mean this
> personally-I tend to put more stock in the opinion of coaches who are faculty
> because I assume that they are looking at the organization's future, not
> simply how fun it is to do what they can get away with now.

There you go with your assumptions again.  Those debaters who frame 
theory and provide it a context in the debate round I believe has as much 
love for the activity as faculty do.  They are attempting to provide 
growth as much as someone who takes a novice debater and walks them 
through their first debate.  And on the question of faculty caring more.  
I hope you mean coaches in general.  There are too many individuals that 
provide there time without compensation to this activity and are the true 
lifeblood.

> Again, if I poke fun at some of this stuff, it is because I think it warrants
> it. Clearly if you are annoyed by it, you have the opportunity to respond. If
> you care to engage in any discussions on specific issues, I will be more than
> happy to oblige.  Are we going to be seeing you join the ranks of coaches
> soon?
> Crossman

It won't be too long, and I'm sure you're counting the days.

Matt

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