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

Re: Water of a Duck's Back (with no reference to Northwestern)

Better to have it happen here where all can be educated about it, then to
go into the "real world" unprepared for the eventuality.  We are teaching
students how to engage in civil discourse.  Some education about civility
came out of the very round you are discussing.

We are here to educate and to learn.  This society desperately needs to
learn how to discuss its most scarring issues, racism, sexism, and
homophobia, in a civil manner.

Will some debates be less than civil?  probably.  Will ANYONE learn
anything about how to address these issues, the value of retaining
civility, and the dangers of going about in the wrong way?  Yes.

If we, the forensics educators, cannot teach people how to have a civil
discussion on race, who can do the teaching?

bill n
emory.

On Mon, 5 May 1997, Michael Gottlieb wrote:

> Being called racist is bad because of the emotional and psychological
> effects it has on the person.  I recall feeling hurt and frustrated
> at comments made be people I consider to be intelligent, articulate,
> and reasonable.  It raises the level of personal involvement in the 
> arguments and discussions in the debate round.  I do not "fear" being
> called a racist, as you have put it.  Rather, I do not desire to go 
> through a year of ad hominem attacks.  The unique distinction in my opinion
> is that the affirmative with a racism advantage can always resort to 
> the argument that the negative's claim of __________ is only advanced by
> proponents who are either a) seeking to maintain the discriminatory
> structure of the status quo b) too blind to notice the racism that
> dominates their thought process and critical thinking skills or c) are
> racist but seek to mask it through economic or political justifications.
> My argument is not that those affirmatives will always win, but rather that
> this type of atmosphere is unpleasant for what I otherwise consider to be a
> civilized forum for intellectual discussion [although if you watched "the
> champ" debate you might get an altogether different picture :)].  Moreover,
> the frustration for me is that no matter how you defend the justifications
> for the status quo, the affirmative can always say, "yeah, but that's just
> part of the present system's racist mentality", and justify it with any
> barrage of warrants from the literature.  You say "I would forward the
> following claim:  this oversensitivity
> >towards the charge serves as a major stumbling block in the resolution
> >of descriminatory policies in the US.  We go around so terrified of
> >being attacked as racist that we avoid the issue altogether."  Your claim
> fails to recognize the large number of us that do significant research into
> civil rights already.  Many in the debate community study civil rights
> issues in political science and sociology classes.  Others, like myself,
> are involved in community service projects in big cities and small, that
> seek to address these very issues.  Others are involved in on campus
> organizations designed to combat racism.  MY ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT WE HAVE
> NOTHING TO GAIN INTELLECTUALLY FROM A CR TOPIC.  Rather, we DO NOT AVOID
> THE ISSUE.  My claim is that being called a racist is not fun, especially
> when it comes from a team attempting to win a ballot in a heated
> competition.  You want to call me a racist?  Fine.  I do not believe that I
> am "afraid" or "oversensitive" as you have argued.  I just don't like it.
> Do you think it's fun to be called a racist?  I don't think so, no one
> does.  Do you think the frustration it builds helps you to better
> understand the issue?  Maybe you do, I certainly don't.  I think that
> careful reading and calm rational discussions are much better for that
> purpose.  I've searched out those readings and those forums for discussion
> on my campus.  Have you?  You will say that it's not fun, but we should be
> able to deal with it.  Well, I can deal with it.  But not spewing down with
> a 9 or 6 minute time limit, and not when a ballot is at stake.  I will
> readily concede to you the certain predispositions and habits I have that
> may exhibit racism.  But I can't do that if I want to win on the negative,
> and I'd rather not deal it in this manner.
> 
> Sorry for the clutter everyone.
> 
> mike 
> 
> 
> At 07:18 PM 5/5/97 -0700, Robert E. Tucker wrote:
> >As the anecdotal evidence begins to sprout, let me ask a serious
> >question: Whats so bad about being called a racist?  Especially if that
> >claim is clearly without merit?  In post after post after post ad
> >infinitum, it is assumed that even unjustly being called a racist is
> >such a horribly transfiguring experience that few who are subjected to
> >it survive.  I would forward the following claim:  this oversensitivity
> >towards the charge serves as a major stumbling block in the resolution
> >of descriminatory policies in the US.  We go around so terrified of
> >being attacked as racist that we avoid the issue altogether.  One more
> >warrant for the CR topic is that right about the middle of October next
> >year, we will know how to debate CR and how to deal with the occasional
> >(though infrequent) charge of racism.  I would ask those who are
> >interested to think what debates about descrimination would be like if
> >we were not so petrified that we would be branded as racist.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Rob Tucker (today's clutterman)
> >CSU Fullerton
> >
> >
> >
>
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page