repost re: policy bigotry

[dklein@dailynews.net]

tuna wrote:

>>>>>>
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.
david

---

• Prev by Date: New on Debate Central in July
• Next by Date: New Topic Papers?
• Prev by thread: New on Debate Central in July
• Next by thread: New Topic Papers?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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