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

More thoughts on debate program autonomy

1.  In terms of departmental hosts for debate program, I stand corrected on
some of the details of the Quail Roost conference in terms of both
rereading the document and Balthrop's post.  I also might modify my stance
to reclarify that despite the structural, small pie situations departments
face, there are many chairs that seek ways of increasing the pie, some
quite creative.  The key agreement is that it varies by circumstance.  We
all know of departments who have actively nourished all of their programs
and uphold them as valuable ressearch resources at research universities,
and as places where essential pedagogy occurs at teaching universities.  We
also know of departments who have killed their debate programs because of
misconceptions they got "too successful" or "fought with the research
mission" of the university. Perhaps had directors prepared documents and
obtained agreements as recommended by the Quail Roost conference the
outcome may have been different.

S0 I feel the need to continue some devil's advocacy on this.

I'm still honestly ambivalent--Although we have a task to sell our programs
to the department, I don't believe that just because a communication
department won't/can't/doesn't have the balls or sense to adequately
procure sufficient funding for a debate program, the students at a
university should be deprived of the opportunity. Although I cannot mention
specific school names on this forum to back this up, I maintain that among
the most stable are those funded by the Chancellor directly rather than the
Department. The program and the department need not conflict--they can
actually support each other--chairs do their debate programs, themselves,
and their departments more service by supporting the notion that their
debate programs aid the entire university, rather than resisting such
arguments as "weak" and maintaining that debate programs are merely an
appendage of a department. As well, the reputation of the department, and
the stability of the department, are also variables among many as to the
best home for debate. If we examine our world with open eyes, honesty, and
clear conscience, we know for a fact that examples abound to back both
scenarios:  1) instances of the chair seeing debate "being an investment in
the future of the whole university" and 2) the chair viewing debate as
being "an appendage of the department that it can only fund to a
'reasonable' [read, small] extent." Again I cannot name them on this forum,
but I challenge you the reader to think of each scenario, and decide for
yourself which one is better for debate.

>From the experiences of others, I have come to the conclusion that the only
thing worse than having a chair that opposes the debate activity is one who
fancies himself or herself as "supportive" one who thinks $10,000.00 is a
big budget. In that instance, there is no advocacy across campus for debate
"the way it ought to be."  I've seen many valuable colleagues burned out by
this frustrating attitude, again one promoted by the structure rather than
any evil intention on the part of the individual.  We need to look at the
larger picture.
 (this was supposed to be short).

2.  On another issue, the tax increase on graduate students is appalling,
and to my mind politically motivated.  When any political party promises
tax cuts and then taxes in a way that not only punishes those with limited
incomes but discourages education, whatever it is, it should never receive
any votes from those serious about education private or public.

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