[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
repost re: policy bigotry
Joe Boyle indicates that he is upset because it was arbitrarily decided to
have a spot on the ballot for a non-policy topic.
Arbitary? The topic survey showed that over TWICE as many schools wanted a
mixture of policy and non-policy topics than schools who said they wanted
only policy topics. In fact, it was almost 3 times as many.
That's not arbitrary. I suppose that Hobbs, Ellingson, and Whitney are also
arbitrary in explaining why they like that choice?
i will answer in more detail below why only policy topics ought be on this
ballot. perhaps the full details of this survey could be provided for the
community. i am NOT questioning the motives of pam or tuna in their
references to this survey. it just has not been, to my knowledge, fully
disclosed. additionally, just as tuna places a burden on those advocating a
policy only ballot, those advocating inclusion of value topics ought have
more of a burden than appeals to "diversity" and "creativity." the terminal
value of the resolutional construct ought also be defended.
I am tempted to start calling this line of argumentation POLICY BIGOTRY,
where not only do they oppose non-policy topics (which is OK) but they
refuse to even allow one for other people to get the chance to vote for.
If half the community in a survey wants a mix of the two, who the heck are
you, Joe Boyle, to say they shouldn't even get a chance to have a
non-policy topic on the ballot?
its interesting using terms like bigotry to describe advocacy of a policy
only perspective. it makes easier the off-hand dismissal of the arguments
because nobody wants to be a bigot. the recent past of ceda would indicate
the more pervasive exclusion came from the value resolution advocates; it
was not that long ago that teams were dropped for running a plan in ceda.
Let me make myself very clear -- I don't really want a non-policy topic,
but if I had to have one I could handle this one. However, I refuse to
relegate the desires of a large number of our schools (many of which are
not on the listserv) to the dustbin because they want a non-policy topic.
sounds vaguely similar to the "silent majority." and that the community
could "handle" a value topic is not a reason to debate one for the year or
even to place one on the ballot.
I request that this silliness stop UNLESS someone can explain to me why we
should not even allow a topic like this on the ballot. Don't explain why
you don't like non-policy topics, show me why we shouldn't be allowed to
vote on one.
Cast your vote as you wish, but don't try and load the agenda so that you
only get what you want. There needs to be a real choice.
there are several reasons why there should be no non-policy resolutions on
the ballot. the first, and one which i have yet to see a rejoinder offered
to, is that this is a unique year for merger and cross-over between ndt and
ceda. the ndt community acted in good faith in altering their topic
selection process with the apparent assurance that a policy topic would be
debated. a second reason is that just as the claim has been made that
policy only advocates should not get what they want simply because they want
it, advocates of non-policy topics should likewise not get it just because
they want it. the terminal worth of each resolutional construct ought be
defended in its own right. a third reason for policy only topics is that
both policy and value claims are possible within a policy construct. the
artificial distiction between policy and value advocacy has been argued at
length. all policy advocation embeds value constructs, either implicitly or
explicitly. conversely, the non-policy topics provide an artificial bright
line where policy advocacy is often excluded.
finally, the non-policy topic wordings are at this point undefended with
topic papers or literature. i understand that these are "forthcoming," but
that also seems a bit hollow. assuming the untold masses want value topics
and are not on the listserve, why then apparently was the topic committee
not furnished at least one full defense of a non-policy resolutional wording
in advance of the meeting? why should the policy constructs have a
different process and burden? although this has been discussed for some
time now, i don't think that equates with silliness.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page