[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
CIDD stuff from NDT-L
Since I receive my CEDA-L in digest form (one huge message per day), I
am not sure whether the following messages have been cross-posted yet --
they hadn't as of this morning.
These are the various responses from the NDT-L to the thread on the
International Debate tours selected by the Committee on International
Discussion and Debate.
Enjoy.
Arnie Madsen
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 03:43:04 -0500
From: Gordon Mitchell <gordon@MERLE.ACNS.NWU.EDU>
Subject: Japan tour
Counterexamples to the concerns raised by Tuna re: selection criteria for
the Japan tour:
1) Two women, Julie Arthur and Cate Palczewski, were selected in 1986 (no
NU coaches on selection panel). OK, they might not have gotten along like
two peas in a pod, but they sure left the Rappongi district buzzing!
2) Julie Spellman was selected over Rob Wick, the then-recently crowned NDT
champion, in 1988. I believe the primary reason for this decision was that
Julie made more of an effort to adapt to an international audience in the
tryouts than Wick. I also believe that her non-NDT debate experience
(primarily in LD) helped her accomplish this rhetorical maneuver, while in
this same department, Rob ran out of Wick. Whether or not the committee
was also motivated to get a gender-balanced team here, I don't know; but
this case sure makes it tough for one to maintain the opposite, that "very
little attention is paid to producing a gender and race balanced team," as
Tuna said in his summary of anonymous hearsay.
I enthusiastically encourage debaters of all kinds to tryout for the tour,
and have confidence in the committee's commitment (whoa!) to sending the
most qualified students, regardless of institutional affiliation, race,
gender, or ethnic background.
Frankly, a more interesting question than selection bias here is the
reception at the other end--the Japanese fetishize the NDT style and have
built their theoretical foundations to mirror this form. In my view, this
is misguided, particularly since the primary purpose of debate in Japan is
to teach English speaking skills, and since NDT jargon does not do this,
enrollment in the English Speaking Societies (which sponsor debate) has
fallen off in recent years. There are potentially great grounds for
someone stepping into the tryouts on an "alternate to NDT" agenda, backed
up by this reasoning and data, offering a different style that better
maximizes argument AND English pedagogy.
One final thing: this is an exhilirating, unforgettable experience. In
retrospect, I would have tried out even if I knew I only had a 1% chance of
being selected--potential upside: huge; only "downside": hone your public
debating skills at tryouts.
--Gordo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:01:06 EDT
From: Ed Panetta <EPANETTA@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject: Japan tour
If someone can forward a copy of Dr. Snider's comments to the NDT-l or
directly to me I would appreciate it.
Ed
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 10:05:46 -0500
From: Catherine Palczewski <Catherine.Palczewski@UNI.EDU>
Subject: japan tour
Before the Japan tour gets a really bad rap, let me clear up a few
misconceptions. I am aware of what goes on in the tour from a couple
of perspectives -- as a participant in the 1987 tour and as a coach for
students who have participated.
As a participant -- no new news here, but I am female. And the
year I went, Julie Arthur was the other participant. That makes two
women in the same year. While the committee composition has
changed, I am not sure a gender bias is all that visible. I felt
no problems during the selection process. Granted, there were
specific questions about gender in the context of Japan being a
very patriarchal society, but none that were out of line. I think
the question of WHO applies is an important one here -- and one that
is emperically answerable by referring to the data. Please, if you
are female and considering applying, DO NOT let unsubstantiated
charges of sexism deter you. Besides, you ought to always read
charges of sexism as a challenge to succeed, not an excuse to
withdraw.
As a coach -- Both Gordon Mitchell and Mark Levenson went
on the Japan tour. WHile Gordon is not an example of a non-rep
debater, he is an example of someone who is quite adept at
adapting to non-spew formats. Just because Gordon was chosen
does not mean rep was the factor. Mark levenson, on the other
hand, was not a person of astounding rep. However, he was a very
very solid debater, who was fluent in Japanese and well
acqainted with the culture.
As for members of the committee not recusing themselves. I
have NEVER heard this before. The year Julie and I were chosen,
Chuck Kauffman was on the committee. He removed himself from the
decision making when Julie and I were being considered. WHile
I do beleive he spoke about the other candidates, I know he
said nothing about either of us. My assumption is that others
operate with the same procedures.
Bottom line is that I found the Japan tour to be an
invaluable experience. The Japanese do want to debate like
us -- and they do. American debaters must make adjustments in terms
of speed and compexity of argument, but the basics are the same.
Given that CEDA debates policy topics (which is what the Japanese
debate), I see no reason why a CEDA person could not qualify.
Given all the talk on this list about merger, and given all I know
about the committee, I am flabbergasted about how a charge or
rampant anti-CEDAism could be made. AFter all, this is the
same committee that makes decisions on the Britich tour, a tour
for which a CEDA person was chosen.
If anyone has questions about the Japan tour, I would be glad to answer
them.
If Tuna would like to post this on the CEDA list, he should
feel free to do so.
cate palczewski
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 10:05:46 -0500
From: Arnie Madsen <Arnie.Madsen@UNI.EDU>
Subject: Re: US Debate Tour of Japan
The CIDD (Committee on International Discussion and Debate) is
a committee of the Speech Communication Association. It is not
inherently biased toward NDT or against CEDA/APDA/NPDA/etc.
Members of the Committee are drawn from different geographic
regions. Each year a slot from a region becomes open. As with
all of the SCA Committees, calls for nominations (including
self-nominations) are published in Spectra, the newsletter of the
SCA.
If people are dissatisfied with CIDD's selection procedures, they
can, 1) nominate someone, including a self-nomination, for
membership on the Committee, 2) contact the CIDD to express
concerns over selection procedures (the current chair of the
CIDD is Warren Decker at George Mason University), 3) attend
meetings of the CIDD -- show up at the beginning of their meetings
and I bet they will let you talk to them for a few minutes.
The different tours each use different formats, and thus focus on
students with different kinds of skills. A blanket critique of the
process saying students are selected because they are "NDT" or are
"popular" misses the mark.
--
Arnie Madsen
arnie.madsen@uni.edu
Communication Studies, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls,
IA 50614-0357 (319) 273-7200
101 Hawthorne Ave, Waterloo, IA 50702 (319) 235-8866
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 16:45:01 EDT
From: Ed Panetta <EPANETTA@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject: CIDD
I was troubled to read Dr. Snider's recent post concerning the
CIDD and international debate tours. Unattributed and unfounded claims
couched as "possibilities" gain an unwarranted degree of argumentative
force. While I expect that more people will remember the "possibilities"
and warning to "think twice" than my response, I will attempt to respond
to the "concerns" raised by Snider.
1. The selection panel is heavily stacked with NDT people so that
CEDA students are neither well-known or taken seriously by the panel.
As Madsen's post to the NDT-L indicates, the Committee on International
Discussion and Debate is an SCA body. The call for nominations is found
in the SPECTRA every summer (one of the regional seats is open each year,
this year the Western seat is open). Personally, I have made inquiries
into the availability of CEDA coaches for the committee. (To avoid the
charge that no such conversation has taken place, Nick Burnett can
verify my claim). Additionally, I hope that an APDA member will
join the committee within the next two years (Yes, debate is bigger than
CEDA and NDT).
For those interested in serving on the committee, you need to be aware
that CIDD committee service requires a LOT of time. The only "active"
coaches that can expect to serve on the committee and carry on regular
debate travel are those of us with TA's.
I am very troubled by the "possibility" that I (or other committee members)
do not take candidates seriously. Despite the fact that you may think of
me as an NDT coach (something my peers often question), I am an educator
and would not ask a student to come to a tryout at her own expense and
treat her as a second-class participant. I would be interested in any
specific evidence that exists to validate this "possibility."
2. That members of the selection panel remain so even though one or
more of their students are in the running.
This is an interesting "possibility." The deliberations take place in a
closed door meeting, while I have served on the committee people have
generally allowed the other member of the committee to make the
decision concerning their student. I served on a committee that did not
select any of three students (all very good candidates) from the school
of a committee member.
3. That selection standards are more "US team debate" than they are
"adapt to international debate."
The team the visits Japan is generally more of a "US debate team" than
the team we send to the UK or USSR. The Japanese want to debate
Disads, Kritiks, CPs, etc . . . This is not to say that we send teams
that ignore the public elements of audience debating.
4. That "popularity" is far more of a factor in selection than
"performance."
Presently, two of the four members of the committee are "retired" debate
coaches and they have more sense than to listen to me to find out who is
currently popular. Additionally, the team the committee sends reflects
upon us professionally, we want to send the best team.
5. That very little attention is paid to producing a gender and race
balanced team.
Any evidence for this "possibility?" The 1992 team that we sent to
Japan had a debater that traced his family roots to the indian sub-continent.
We are sending a woman APDA debater to UK this winter. Cate Palczewski and
Gordon Mitchell provided examples of women who took the tour in the 1980's.
Hell, my spouse was a member of the 1980 tour. Dr. Lucy Keele, Cal State
Fullerton, has long championed the feminist cause in debate and has been
a contributor to the CIDD program since the mid-1970's.
Hopefully I have answered the assertions behind the veneer of the possibilities
raised in the Snider posting. Hopefully, this message will make it to
CEDA=L (I would appreciate it if someone would post it if it doesn't make
it). Additionally, I hope you will cross list your postings on this
subject to CEDA-L. I am concerned that the CEDA community might
"think twice" about trying out because of the "possibilities."
Edward M. Panetta
Associate Professor
Director of Debate
Speech Communication
Univ of Georgia, Athens GA 30602
(706) 542-4445/ (706) 542-3245 (fax)
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page