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

Re: Megers sound nice but it'd have to be a hostile takeover

On Tue, 17 Jan 1995 jhboyle@acs.harding.edu wrote:

>  
> Well, I suppose I should flesh out some of the reasons I don't think the
> two will merge anytime soon absent the "blahblah etc." statement :).
>  
> 1) Political Entrenchment:  I think both activities have an ingrained hierarchy
>    in place, both officially and unofficially.  The official hierarchy's come
>    in the form of presidents of the organization and the like.  The unofficial
>    power structure comes both in the form of the coaches of the "top teams",
>    and those individuals who happen to have a lot of clout in the community;
>    (it's rather difficult to quantify this but I do believe it exists).

The great thing about a merger is that it would rock the "power 
structure" (if that exists).  People would have to reevaluate 
reputation.  (this is something that I would think people should do 
anyway, but I recognize that some judges do vote on rep).  The 
combination of the activities creates a power vacuum that can only be 
filled by work.  The teams that work the hardest will win the most (kinda 
like the current system).

>    Why I think this is a barrier: From the official standpoint, I don't
>    believe individuals in power want to abdicate that power.  They've accepted
>    responsibilities of their office and have established political networks
>    that they operate through in order to accomplish objectives.  In a nutshell,
>    they're comfy.  From the unofficial power structure I see a couple of
>    hinderances.  Initially the pecking order would be disrupted.  I'm not
>    sure that the merger wouldn't create an initial heightening of competition
>    which might be unhealthy.  Coaches, assistants, and debaters would still
>    recognize that "Oh, you were an NDT'r" and "Oh, you were a CEDA person"
>    for quite a while after a merger.  I'm not sure what the impact of that
>    would be, however.  

I think that you portray people in this activity as more dogmatic than 
I'd like to believe they are.  We're supposedly a group of people who 
recognize a good argument when we hear one.  If that is in fact the case, 
then why would an argument for neutrality after the merger be ignored?  
Remember, everyone is starting in a new system, not just the teams that 
"suffer" in the status quo (even though I think that we all suffer in the 
status quo, because debaters are denied the opportunity to learn from all 
of the possible views that would be allowed through a merger).

>    Furthermore, I think there is something of a political structure in the
>    way tournaments are scheduled.  All of a sudden some schools which have
>    traditionally hosted tournaments might find themselves being displaced, or
>    being in competition with schools from the merger.  I think this may be
>    a barrier to integration because I don't think some individuals would want
>    to give up their traditional role.


There would be so many teams that it wouldn't matter.  If we can support 
multiple tournaments on a weekend now, we can do it then.  It would also 
revive the district system, an entity that both CEDA and NDT have, but is 
useless because of the nature of both national tournaments.  A few 
tournaments would become the national, bring your best, type of 
tournaments.  Schools that want to host those tournaments would have to 
design features that attract the teams.

> 2) Structural Barriers:  The NDT operates on a bid system for nationals, CEDA
>    operates on an open system.  I think this would be a heated issue which would
>    be argued about for quite a while.  Then there's the judging system (strikes
>    and MP, etc) and the judging pool (CEDA having a more diverse selection 
>    and NDT torunaments being more selective).  I don't know that the "other
>    activity" would want to expose themselves to a new selection of judges
>    which - in the opinion of some - would "taint" the pool they have culled.
>    Furthermore, the speech times are different (but I think that is the least
>    of the differences).  Lastly, I'm not really on top of this (I only stay
>    in touch with my old partner who goes to Dartmouth and a friend at George
>    Washington so my NDT 'network' is somewhat limited) but I think the regions
>    in NDT hold a lot more meaning than they do in CEDA (as far as political
>    support, tournament selection, and traveling).

All things that can be worked out if people are committed.  What do 
people have to fear in a merger?  If power is the answer then you're in 
the activity for the wrong reason.  The problem, as I see it, is that 
there are a few people, in each activity, that apparently don't want to 
give up what they've accomplisheed, and have bitter memories of the 
breakup (as evidenced by the discussion that happened last year on the 
merger when ideas were dismissed as CEDA/NDT ideas --search the CEDA-L 
archive for this discussion I'm sure you'll be appauled at the tone).


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ David Genco              + I'm just kickin' around on +
+ UNT                      + a piece of ground in my    +
+ Denton, TX               + home town --Pink Floyd     +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page