[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
- From: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 15:04:08 -0400 (EDT)
- Apparently-To: <CEDA-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu>
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
Cc: Issues concerning CEDA Debate <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>
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 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 1997 email@example.com 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
> 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
> 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
Arizona State U.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page