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

[Fwd: Morally objectionable argument...a reconsideration]

If you will accept any positions that you still find repulsive and that
affect you personally in the Real World, then I think you have the
answer. I was mugged once -- quite a horrible event in my life. I will
still accept positions, think they should be weighed by the judge in a
round, like "Mugging good". Who can claim that I can't possibly discuss,
or be justified to argue for the acceptance of, "rape good" positions?
Who dares tell me that somehow my repulsions are somehow outweighed by
another's? Who claims that I have to smoke crack to be able to discuss
the crack issue as it pertains to public policy or morality?

-Randy

Personnel Assistant wrote:
> 
> I am a white male.  I've never been called "nigger," threatened with bodily
> harm because of my appearance, or treated as an inferior because of my skin
> color.
> 
> I have no clue how difficult and insulting it might be for a person of
> color to engage in a self-imposed process of disassociating with their
> experience for the purpose of evaluating a racist argument, which is
> probably coming straight from the mouth of a white male.  I can't imagine
> it.
> 
> Nonetheless, yesterday I did advocate it.
> 
> As a white male, I can imagine dissassociation.  I can imagine a sense of
> "objectivity" when listening to the position.  That's because no one in my
> family was ever beaten up for being black, because my grandfather never had
> a problem getting into a restroom or restaurant, and because I have never
> felt even a personal sting of racism.
> 
> I still feel compelled to believe that, from an intellectual perspective,
> my position is correct.
> The process of opening the door to wholesale judge intervention based on
> personally held moral perspectives risks the academic integrity of debate.
> The process of compelling debaters to explain Why things like racism are
> evil (instead of protecting them from dealing with the argument by stating
> "I won't listen to that crap!" prior to the round) is desirable.
> 
> I am reminded of something Al Madrid used to preach to me and Chad when he
> coached us.  He was always telling us to look at underlying assumptions.
> That is why I advocated that judges listen to the repugnant and endorse the
> execution of arguments as opposed to the content.  I would maintain that
> forcing debaters to Explain why racism is bad and to Understand why the
> core values that they (hopefully) hold are Desirable provides debate with
> an utterly unique ability to educate on values.  The next holocaust is most
> likely to occur somewhere where people don't know and cannot explain why
> these things are bad.  Let's discuss them--let's look at the underlying
> assumptions of the "morally correct" alongside those of the "morally
> incorrect."
> 
> There is, no doubt, an element of reification that occurs when judges
> remain "objective" in the face of racism (and more so if they are to vote
> on it).  I would like to think that this reification is somehow
> overshadowed by the good done by forcing critical examination of the views
> held about these positions.
> 
> Clearly, there are "risks" in each approach.  To block discussion of racism
> with de facto censorship (making it known you will not listen to an
> argument type) does establish a precedent to chill the scope of debate.  To
> accept bigoted filth risks some level of reification.
> 
> So, the white male typing this letter is trying to decide which side to
> take.
> And, he has been wrestling with that question from a white male's
> perspective.
> And he is informed by his socially structured worldview that Al Madrid is
> full of shit and that the impact of reification and enactment are so damn
> small that the benefits of bringing the issue out into the open for "fair
> discussion" are so damn big that it should be AOK to run "racism is good,"
> "baby stew is tasty," "patriarchy is wonderful," etc.
> 
> And that is the problem.  My worldview doesn't work like Al Madrid's.  My
> experience as a white male from the wheat fields of Kansas  is not Al
> Madrid's experience as a black Panamanian.  And I might be able to
> empathize with his feelings of repulsion, but I cannot understand them
> entirely.
> 
> I know enough to know what I don't know.  And I don't know a way out of
> this one.
> 
> It's easy for people like Kuss to say, "get off your personal life and
> judge the round like an automaton, devoid of emotion."  It's easy for me to
> intellectualize the eventual benefits of discussing race issues in a
> so-called "objective" fashion.   And the reason it is so easy for me is
> because of who I am and what my life has been--not because I have The
> Truth.
> 
> And the reason Al Madrid says he won't play the "objective" game is the
> same.  It's because of who he is and what his life has been.
> 
> So, what's the way out?
> Right now, I don't know.  But, I am backtracking from my previous position.
>  And I'm going to keep following this thread and trying to think of an
> answer.
> 
> Because this isn't really about judging debate rounds anymore.  It's just
> as much about how we, as members of different subgroups, can find a way to
> understand one another.
> 
> Carson Brackney

-- 
<----------------------------------------->
| Randal Pittelli                         |
| Dept of Environmental Medicine          |
| Univ of Rochester Medical Center        |
| Rochester, NY 14642                     |
|                                         |
| TEL: (716) 275-0797                     |
| FAX: (716) 256-2591                     |
| pittelli@envmed.rochester.edu           |
| http://www.envmed.rochester.edu/wwwrlp/ |
| --------------------------------------- |
|  "Love only a god that dances" - F.N.   |
<----------------------------------------->
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page