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

Re: DEFENDING THE FREE AGENT!

Right on Sean!!!  I am impressed that someone who debated *loyally* for 
the same program for four years has so much understanding about the 
mentality of the transfer student.  Being a virtual expert on the 
subject, I have a few things to add:

PEOPLE WHO TRANSFER *OFTEN* DO IT FOR *LEGITIMATE* PURPOSES,

5) THE COACH-STUDENT RELATIONSHIP--Coaches are an invaluable part of the 
activity, for obvious reasons.  In the most perfect of worlds, each coach 
would use their unique position of control and authority to maximize 
their student's educational (and fun) experiences in debate.  They would 
talk to their students and listen to the concerns raised by debaters 
about their needs, travel, or whatever.  Unfortunately, the theoretical 
nicety can be tainted by the imperfect relationships between people.  
Some coaches *wield* their power ineffectively.  Some do not listen to 
the concerns of their students.  Some make *promises* (financial aid, 
travel, support) that they can neither deliver nor ever intend to.  Some 
harass their students about real or perceived sexual relations.  Some 
(yes, even in the 90s) tell women debaters to wear more make-up, or wear 
their hair differently or dress "pretty" so that they don't seem so 
agressive.  Now I am certainly not indicting all coaches.  Most do not abuse 
their role in this way.  But those that do, lose students, and they will 
continue to either through drop outs or transfers.  Usually when a 
reason like this is part of student's justification for a transfer, it's never
talked about publicly, for obvious reasons.  Most students don't want to drag 
their former coaches through the mud, or threaten their position in the 
university, or bring themselves any more pain, they simply want to be able to 
debate without the tyranny I described above.

6)PERSONAL, NON-DEBATE RELATED REASONS--Every debater, to some degree, 
has a life outside of debate.  Minimally, they have to attend classes, 
which usually means that they are in a department.  Perhaps the student 
really wants to study political science but the school they attend has an 
abismal department, or simply not the one they want.  Or maybe the 
student has problems ditching an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend who is stalking 
them.  Or maybe they can't afford to continue attending their school 
without aid which, upon request, is denied.  The specific instance doesn't 
really matter.  The bottom line is that a student may decide they have an 
unacceptable style of living and need to change their physical envrionment.  
That does not mean that student loses their rights to compete in this activity
(ask your lawyer, I asked mine).

7)ANY REASON IS LEGITIMATE (ALMOST)--Save the EXCEEDINGLY rare instance 
of some outside coach approaching debaters with promises of money and 
greener grass, any decision by a student regarding their education is 
legitimate.  Heard of academic freedom?  Heard of customer service?  If a 
student makes the decision that, for whatever reason, they are not happy 
in their environment, and that the educational aspects of school, debate, 
etc. are not panning out, let em' go.  A while ago the federal government 
decided that it is illegal to own a person, so the arguments relying on 
claims of owing something to a program are unfounded legally or 
ethically.  I will admit that each party (student/coach) have 
responsibilities to the other, but that is very different than the power 
based relationship opponents of transfering advocate.  

SOME ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:

One perspective which I have a lot of experience with is that debaters 
who transfer (especially those terrible one's who do it over and over) 
cause havoc for the squads they leave behind.  I have a problem with this.  
Why is it acceptable for debate to teach dependency.  People should rely on 
who?  Themselves.  If one person is doing all of the research and 
argument writing, then the squad generally is not being educated.  That 
doesn't help the activity.  No debater should be irreplaceable.  If they 
are, then you need to spend time developing other debaters' skills.  
There are also glaring examples of where this is not true.  This year's KSU 
team was much smaller due to transfers, but I'll bet Dave is satisfied with his 
performance.  Why?  He takes responsibility for himself.  Two years ago, 
a bunch of people left Gonzaga (two coaches, four debaters) and Bill 
DeForeest, Blake Dias, etc. have not been devastated by the loss!  Ask 
SIU if they are confident in their ability to compete without transfers, 
McNesse etc.  They seem to be doing fine!!!  

I also want to speak to what I think is an unfortunate misperception in 
the community.  Transfering (especially for me!) has become so prevalent 
that people assume the debaters take it lightly.  I can't speak for you 
other transfer brothers and sisters out there, but in my case, each 
decision was extremely hard and painful to make and the consequences 
enormous.  In each case, I had to do what was ultimately best for my 
development as a human, student, whatever.  For me transfering meant that 
people who used to respect me called me *evil* and forbid their debaters 
from associating with me and other evil transfers (some even called ahead to 
my new schools to warn them--now that's professional).  Transfering also 
meant leaving my home, all of my friends, parents, sources of stability.  
Moving is very difficult.  It's very expensive.  It's very emotionally 
draining.  Students would waste the hassle if there wasn't a very important 
reason for doing so.  The community, in some cases will understand that.  
People were pretty sympathetic (well at least the friendly people) to the 
Gonzaga move, including the remaining members of the squad and Bill Defo 
himself.  But in a lot of cases, the reasons aren't publicized.  There may be 
embarassing information about a coach or program which is inappropriate for 
public scrutiny; there may be personal, non-debate reasons which are none of 
our business.  

In any case, further persecution for students who transfer will not solve 
the problem.  If that policy had been in place I'd be debating until I'm 
thirty.  It may, however, force students to choose between staying in an 
unacceptable situation or leaving debate.  Nice.  Thanks for the wide 
variety of exciting choices.  Instead, concerned coaches should try to 
develop working relationships with their students which emphasize 
openness, honesty and reciprocity.  Presumption is usually against 
change.  Debaters will stay if they think that they can.  Give them an 
alternative.  Many would be transfer students come to me for advice when 
they consider a move (imagine that!) and in most if not all cases I have 
told debaters to seek solutions at home first before they screw with 
their whole life.  

In favor of civil rights of students,

Becky Galentine
beckyg@u.washington.edu
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page