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

No Subject

6 May 1997 12:00:55 -0700 (MST)@
Received: from email1.asu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by email1.asu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA21317; Tue,
 06 May 1997 12:03:23 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 12:03:22 -0700 (MST)
Subject: re: representation in debate
In-reply-to: <199705060711.DAA28552@cornell.edu>
X-Sender: jbskarb@email1.asu.edu
To: sylvia.beltran@asu.edu
Cc: Issues concerning CEDA Debate <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>
Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.970506114902.17226C-100000@email1.asu.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


this thread used to be a discussion about civil rights and the market 
place of ideas...my last post on any of this subject matter...got some 
finals to take...

On Tue, 6 May 1997 sylvia.beltran@asu.edu wrote: 
> 
> On Tue, 6 May 1997 jbskarb@asu.edu wrote:
> 
> > how in the world is my argument stupid...if there is a voice absent from 
> > a discussion (in this case the all important minority voice in regard to 
> > a civil rights topic) we can't have a TRULY enlightening and fruitful 
> > discussion of the implications of a policy and on a deeper level racism, 
> > sexism, etc.  the demographics of debate are all important.  everyone on 
> > this list is saying how much of an important issue it is that we solve 
> > all of this discrimination.  if people really feel this way should we not 
> > first take pro active steps to end the under-representation of groups 
> > within the debate community...maybe then we could have a beneficial 
> > discussion of race issues etc when we actually can hear from the people 
> > that will be effected most.
> > 
> 
> i will have to repectfully disagree with this one for multiple reasons.
> 
> first, why is it that we cannot do both debate about civil rights and 
> encourage more women and minorities to participate?  it seems as though 
> having a topic like civil rights could have the benefit of encouraging 
> more minorities and women to participate in debate because the issues 
> would be salient to their everyday lives and struggles.
> 

Never have i said that we can't do both at the same time...we most likely 
could...my contention is that it would not be a fruitful discussion and 
certainly not one that will enlighten us...why in the world would a civil 
rights topic increase minority involvement...it seems that the real 
problem is that there is lack of representation of these groups at 
universities and financial considerations etc...it is not because these 
disenfranchized groups don't like the topic...gimmee a break...

> also, arguments such as there are not enough women and minorites who 
> debate seems to discount those who are. there are SOME minorities and 
> women in debate. i am a minority AND a woman.  and i used to debate.
> we will hear from some of the "people."

you are right my argument does discount those who are...but if you admit 
that there are not enough disenfranchized people now you only prove the 
fact that we should first work to solve our own problems in the debate 
community and second that we may not be able to have a good discussion 
of the issues.  my argument is that we can never fully understand or 
defend a position unless we first hear from the people that would be 
effected by that policy or position...

> 
> next, just because the majority of debaters are not minorities and women 
> does not mean they are incapable of emphathizing with the importance of civil 
> rights. at least i hope not.
> 

wrong...how can they be...the only way to truly understand some ones 
plight is to interact with them and be able to hear their support or lack 
there of for certain policies and ideas...my argument is not that we can 
never have debate only that our discussion in the round should not be 
viewed as a life changing experience as others on the l have said that it 
should...

> additionally, in the real world policymakers are largely white and male.
> if they all said let's wait to pass x policy until we get more women and 
> minorities, where would we be?
> 

so what...i never said the world outside of debate is perfect either...in 
all actuality i conceed that it is not...i just believe that before we 
embark on debating a civil rights topic we should first question our own 
orgarnization and the lack of representation of disenfranchized people in 
debate...

> so basically the  argument is that we have to wait to debate civil rights
> until women and minorities are adequately represented in debate.  well, i
> am here to tell you that the reason we have to debate civil rights is
> because women and minorites are not adequately represented anywhere.  the
> problems we face are systemic.  we may never debate civil rights if we 
> wait for this perfect balance that is probably impossible.  women and 
> minorites are under-represented in college (many times) which is why 
> (among other reasons) they are under-represented in debate. it takes time 
> to implement programs to increase the involvement of under-represented 
> groups.  i don't know about anyone else, but i can't wait that long. by 
> the time we "solve" for underrepresentation in debate, we hopefully won't 
> have a civil rights issue to debate about.  the debate will be over.

first this line of reasoning takes out all of the arguments that you make 
prior to this one...you say that if we debate this topic more minorities 
will debate because this is an important issue to them...here you say 
that they can't because discrimination is systemic...you can't have it 
both ways...second, this argument proves my point that we have to do 
things other than talk about civil rights to make a difference and the 
impact to talking about it first is that the people who are most effected 
are never heard...that is bad

Justin Skarb
Arizona State U.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page