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

Policy Bigotry

Tuna Writes:

>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 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?

Whoops, time-out, do not pass go, do not collect two-hundred dollars. 
 The top part of your argument is correct, the assumption you make at 
the bottom is not.  This is my argument:

I do not personally feel that any *slot* on the resolution canvass 
should be *reserved* for *any* particular *type* of resolution.  The 
key words here are "type of resolution", "reserved" and "any".  The 
example that was being used was value topics but it applies equally 
to policy topics.  You may have missed a better explanation of this 
during the pissing contest slusher and I were having (sorry everyone) 
over the course of 3 posts or so.  My argument is not that we should 
EXCLUDE any type of resolution but that we should not INCLUDE any 
particular resolution TYPE or set a limit or quota UNTIL RESOLUTIONS 
ARE DRAFTED.  Once we have a pile of resolutions on the topic 
committee's table and they decided "We're going to pick the best 6 
topics and put them on the ballot" then the topic committee should 
pick the BEST six topics and put them on the ballot.  The topic 
committee should NOT put a topic on the ballot just for the sake of 
having a particular type on there.  

If a situation existed where there were 6 absolutely astounding 
"value" topics and a bunch of half-ass thrown together policy topics 
then I would expect the 6 value topics to appear on the ballot.  I 
wouldn't want a policy topic thrown on just because "Well, some 
people like policy topics".  If that's the case then "some people" 
should have drafted a kick ass policy topic and submitted it.  
Likewise, I wouldn't want to see a half-ass effort put into drafting 
a "value resolution" and throwing it on the ballot as a facile 
gesture of diversity and creativity.  If there are going to be 6 
slots on the ballot then the community deserves to have the BEST 6 
topics the topic committee can come up with appear on the ballot, not 
the best 5 and a token 6th.

I think your automatic assumption that I don't want non-policy topics 
on the ballot is absurd.  I don't care what TYPE of resolution 
appears on the ballot I want good RESOLUTIONS on the ballot.  My 
focus is on NOT SETTING UP QUOTA'S ON THE BALLOT FOR RESOLUTION 
****TYPES****.  I hope that's clear enough.


>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.

Good, then do your job as a member of the topic committee and help 
select a "non-policy" topic which is a good one.  A non-policy topic 
that you hold to the SAME rigors of examination, discussion, and 
exploration as you hold the POLICY resolutions.  And if you do that 
and come up with a resolution that passes the examination of the 
topic committee in the same way you are assuring the quality of the 
policy resolutions then put it on the ballot.  But don't do a 
disservice to the large number of schools who want a non-policy topic 
by putting one on the ballot that is inferior to the policy 
resolutions, or one that didn't get the same attention as the policy 
resolutions.

>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.


Exactly, so make it a real choice by putting the BEST resolutions on 
the ballot.  If that means there are 6 non-policy resolutions then so 
be it.  The only silliness is in reserving slots on the ballot for 
types of resolutions.  Sort through your topics, examine them, re-
work them, and if you want to make a non-policy resolution your area 
of focus on the committee then work it, lobby it, discuss it, and 
make it a resolution that is of the same caliber as the other 
resolutions your going to put on the ballot.  

Just say "No" to affirmative action for resolution types and 
categories and say "Yes" to choosing resolutions for the ballot based 
on merit.

Joe Boyle
Graduate Assistant
Fort Hays State University
"Classical utilitarianism, which ranks states of affairs according to 
the amount of total satisfaction they contain, is the most familiar 
consequentialist view.  But classical utilitarianism is widely 
thought to be too crude a theory.  Although its defenders point with 
approval to its simplicity, critics charge that this simplicity is 
achieved at too high a cost.  They argue that utilitarianism relies 
on implausible assumptions about human motivation, incorporates a 
strained and superficial view of the human good, and ignores a host 
of important considerations about justice, fairness, and the 
character of human agency.  More generally, they accuse 
utilitarianism of relentless insensitivity to the nature of a person, 
and suggest that it has forfeited any serious claim to account for 
the complex and varied considerations that intrude on the moral life, 
and which give rise to the severest tests of our decency.  Indeed, 
utilitarianism has gained a reputation for moral clumsiness that is 
unparalleled among ethical theories.  Bernard Williams, writing that 
'the simple mindedness of utilitarianism disqualifies it totally', 
suggest that '[t]he day cannot be too far off in which we hear no 
more of it'.
(Samuel Scheffler, prof. of philosophy at UC Berkeley, 1994 _The 
Rejection of Consequentialism_ rev.ed, p.3)
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page