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

Views on the Topic Selection Process

First, the CEDA topic selection process has always been accessible and 
open to the ideas of its members.  The accessibility and open nature of 
the organization and its topic selection process has been and, I hope, 
always will be a feature of the CEDA organization.  No special pedigree 
ordegree of competitive success as a former debater, or as a coach or 
association with a particular kind or type of institution is necessary to 
be elected to the organization or the topic committee.  CEDA next year 
will include a student representative on the topic committee.  There is 
also a grass roots movement underway to give student reprersentatives 
voting rights at CEDA business meetings.  If this sounds as though I am 
bragging, I am.

Second, this year Tuna Snider, chair of the topic committee, led the
the topic committee into the most open, accessible and responsive topic 
selection process imaginable.  During the process the committee was 
electronically connected to the community through CEDA-L postings.  We 
continued to receive and adapt topic wordings during the meetings and 
afterwards to comments from the community.  We considered most of the 
suggestions that were made before they were made.  Nevertheless, we were 
glad to consider them because they confirmed the importance and the 
shared values of our considerations.  We adapted to those changes that we 
thought were good and feasbile and rejected others.  I cannot imagine a 
process that might have been more open.  I also cannot imagine a group of 
colleagues such as these who combined openess with the ability to stand 
firm for those ideas that they saw as important.  I am convinced there 
were no hidden agendas of any kind.  The only agenda was to produce a 
slate of good topics for great debates for a wide and diverse community.

Third, it concerns me greatly that some of the earlier comments and even 
most recent comments seem not to recognize that this process had and 
continues to have integrity and that, in my opinion, is producing a good 
set of topics.  A message appeared on the L while I was composing this 
message that suggested that the Topic Committee should not be rigid and 
adhere to procedure for the sake of procedure and that the changes we had 
made so far were rather cosmetic tinkering rather than substantive and 
important ones.  Perhaps there is more that we should do;  perhaps there 
are much better topics that could be composed; perhaps we will still 
change the list!  However, I think the suggestion that this committee was 
stodgy or mired in procedure is pretty clearly false.  The L is the 
witness to our process and I think the testimony it offers is compelling.

Finally, I would ask my colleagues, friends and those people in other 
communities who may be joing us in some wonderful tournaments to reflect 
upon probably what the real reasons have been for some of the controversy 
and discomfort with the process and topics.  I think what has been 
happening inside individual communities as well between and among the 
various communities attending to this process is a clash of cultures.  
The CEDA community is experience some internal conflict among those who 
want, for example, value topics to be considered and those who prefer 
policy topics.  Some of these views seem to be connected even with 
individual notions of what a debate should be like and even concepts of 
individual advocacy and personal autonomy.  The CEDA culture, even though 
it has probably moved toward NDT, is still very different from NDT 
culture.  Add to the idea of a culture clash the problem of the one 
community who has ceded its control of a topic process to another 
community and I think it is easy to see why there is clash and 
discomfort.  In addition, to this there is part of the CEDA community who 
wonders what debate will be like if and when NDT teams actually 
participate in our tournaments and the countervailing concern probably 
also exists with some members of the NDT community.  Most debaters and 
debate coaches who I have known through the years want control and as 
much of it as they can get.  The loss of control over an activity that 
has been so important to most of our lives is not easy to consider.  

I would hope that members of both communities would recognize that this 
topic making and selection process has been a very good one.  Further, I 
hope that we should not allow the instantaneous nature of electronic 
communication allow us to make statements which lack support and which 
misrepresent the process.  Finally, reasonable people can come to 
different conclusions.

I am looking forward to a great debate season on one of the topics that 
will be on the ballot soon to be mailed or posted.

Regards to all my colleagues in all communities,



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