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

spare me your elitist bribery

So the advocates of CFR are now attempting to bribe the
debate community with promises of being "hooked up"
with "real  policy makers."  I will ignore the ethical
questions (such as, does this legitimize me making a
promise--and keeping it--that if civil rights is chosen, I'll
bring Jesse Jackson with me to nats?) concerning turning
the topic selection process into a game of celebrity
brinkpersonship, and concentrate on the phrases and
assumptions of Mr. Donald and Mr. Segal.

Segal:

	>>>
> I am a partner in a DC law firm, and I mkae you this pledge:  IF CFR
> IS
> CHOSEN, I WILL DO MY BEST TO HOOK COLLEGE DEBATE UP WITH
> REAL POLICY MAKERS ON THE TOPIC.  Possibly a year-end debate in
> front of real policy makers!!
	>>>
Oh boy!  Obviously our nipples are hardening and our hearts pounding!
Why is this
a reason to prefer the topic itself?  

And what about those of us who philosophically object to the term "real"
because
it is couched in the kind of "objectivism" that characterizes statist,
capitalist thinking?
As a radical educator, I would encourage my students to attend such a
meeting only
for the purposes of some good old Marcusian protest.  

In all seriousness, meeting policymakers is fine and dandy, good for the
connections and resumes as they say.  But "college debate" will not be
hooked up--only a small, infintesimal portion of college debate.
Perhaps
a team or two.  Perhaps whoever can afford to go to Washington.
Certainly
not all the bread-and-butter teams who will debate the topic.

 We should be concerned with the merits of the topic itself--the
research 
burdens, the social significance, the fairness and division of ground,
and its 
aesthetic value.  We shouldn't give a rat's ass that it was written by a
member 
of Bracewell and Patterson who  knows (gasp) real policymakers.  (Don't
we 
all know a few of those anyway?) Mr. Segal was a VERY good NDT debater, 
but his position in a law firm (and his alleged connections with the
elite)
matters as much as Hays and Trice's positions as coaches, or Meany's 
or anyone else's--that is, none at all.


	Steve Donald:
	>>>
>  Before any of you scoff, remember, this is perhaps our first chance 
> to actually make a real world impact.  Whatever the probability, its
> the 
> ONLY one that could  receive direct attention by some people 
> who can make a difference.
	>>>
Spare me.  You can do the same thing by writing a letter to your elected
officials.  You can march in protest against policies you detest.  You
can
write editorials.  Remember Jim Haefele's sarcastic dismissal of any
chance
of real change coming from the civil rights topic?  Where's Jim when we
need him?  

"Real change" does not happen when policymakers condescend to a
photo-op by listening to college students have a debate round.  It
took millions marching in the streets to make policymakers listen
to arguments against Jim Crow laws, the Vietnam War, anti-abortion
laws, etc.  

	>>>
> And if you are worried that watching just one debate won't sway them,
> I 
> suggested to Scott that he should keep those he has ties to abreast of
> the 
> evolution of 
> the topic, and which cases win most, etc.  It should give us more of
> an 
> incentive to work harder, and engage in better debates.
	>>>
Who is "us"?  What about those of us who choose to interpret the topic
radically?  Globalistically?  Anarchistically?  Through a feminist lens?
Do you really think those powderpuff ruling class yokels will listen to
good debates which challenge long-held imperialistic assumptions?  In
fact, would anyone who had a chance in hell of running radical positions
be chosen to debate in front of these "policymakers?"  By trying to
entice
us with the chance of hooking up with these types, you are SELLING OUT!
Undermining the critical possibilities of debate.  

I have nothing against a CFR topic.  In fact, it is running a close
second or
third for me right now, because of its radical possibilities.  But stick
to the
very good arguments you were making earlier, Steve.  This attempt at
building
support for the CFR topic was weak.

matt stannard
ps Jazz vs Bulls in finals.  Malone head to head with "Sir" Charles
any day.
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page