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

RE:JASON JARVIS/racist discourse and debate

>re:  Matt, all I am trying to do to both you as well for others in the
>community is make you aware of the implications of the dicourse on persons
>of colour.  I'm trying to get you to see that for some the theoretical
>implications are not theoretical, they are a real and daily existence.  I'm
>also trying to get you to understand that what you are asking me to do in
>evaluating these issues is a form of disavowal that in and of itself smacks
>of racism.  You are saying that eliminating the personal in this situation
>is what any good judge ought to do and that in not being able to do so
>there is something intrinsically wrong with me.

NO. I have never said there is anything wrong with you.

What is wrong is having a judge in a debate round that takes matters into
their own hands. I am not trying to deny you any personal experience or the
legitimacy of any said experience. It seems that the difference may be that
you see yourself as individual listening to racist discourse, I see you as a
judge listening to argumentation. With being a judge there are other
obligations you have, and these obligations may come in conflict with your
right to make moral judgements on discourse. I am not implying that you are
either human or a judge. Rather, as I have advocated before, debate is not
there for you to make into a safe haven. It is there for issues to be
hammered out. Sometimes these issues may offend but it is part of the
activity. Perhaps we should have pro-active judging in which a full profile
of the judge is provided to the debaters ahead of time and the debaters must
not only win the round, they also must avoid upsetting the judge in doing
so. In my judging of highschool debate and in the discussions I have had
with judges of CEDA, it is not uncommon for a judge to give a bollot to a
team that is not in their favor due to strategy used or arguments ran in the
round. Since the dehumanization you speak of cannot be quantified, ANYTHING
unpleasant can be said to have the same effects, and suddenly the actual
arguments in the round no longer matter.

Your stance on the discourse is valid, but I dont see how it can synthesize
with the role of debate judge and not illegitimize the activity in the process.

> IN asking me to be
>objective you are asking me to deny the part of me which has and continues
>to experience that which you only watch.  Its one thing to watch someone
>get beat up or discriminated, it is quite another thing to be the subject
>of that oppression.  I am not saying not to discuss the issue but I am
>saying be aware of whom you are speaking to.  Remember the danger of the
>object/subject discourse.  Of course this in and of itself is an argument
>that could be used in front of me, and if it is you better believe I will
>jive on it.

What you say here sounds fair enough. It also depends on the actual wording
and such of the arguments presented before you. I think that debaters when
discussing any issue have an obligation to present it in such a way that
would not in and of itself perpetuate the very issue they are refuting.

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