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

Re: Is SECEDA Elitist?

On Wed, 16 Oct 1996 lmcoppol@unccvx.uncc.edu wrote:

> When I was an NDT debater in the late eighties, many snickered at the 
> emerging CEDA format as lesser debate.  I remember this year at 
> CEDA nationals how vehement some of my colleagues were in 
> claiming  that we are the largest debate organization.   That we offer 
> possibilities for both large and small programs.  I gleamed from these 
> statements and others like them that inclusion is one "theme" which 
> pervades CEDA. ( I personally think the same from my experiences as 
> a debater in NDT.)  But, inclusion on whose terms?  Is it inclusion 
> unconditionally or  is inclusion only when it suits our political 
> purposes as DOF's?  Some of my influencial colleagues in the South 
> East seem  to have conveniently forgotton some of the basic lessons of 
> that academic debate probably should teach to both students and 
> faculty alike -- honesty in discussing differences of opinion rather than 
> back biting power plays.
>  
> I am a feminist academician and activist.  I have run for political 
> office, stopped multi -national corporations from acquiring tax 
> abatements, arranged for the unconditional release of a man falsely 
> accused of armed robbery who was a scapegoat in the name of law 
> enforcement expediency, experienced the cold reality of my residence 
> being deluged by the flight of  12  9mm bullets from cocaine dealers 
> who were flooding our barrio with the substance.  I have put my ability 
> to research, articulate, refute, cross-examine, etc. into actual real-
> world practice of liberatory politics.    It seems that our level of 
> professionalism at debate tournaments, in committee meetings of 
> whatever format we are involved, etc. is also a real-world reflection of 
> our philosophy of debate.  I refuse to artificially separate the two.  
> DEBATE IS REAL WORLD.  And,   I am concerned that many of my 
> colleagues in SECEDA are  perpetuating the same elitist, exclusionary 
> attitude that  I as a feminist am committed to ameliorate. And by the 
> arguments many of the debaters make (assuming they don't just run 
> them exclusively to win rounds)  are also philosophically opposed.   I 
> refuse to remain silent or I would be doing the program, the activity, 
> and the thesis of my liberatory politics a disservice.  There is a hint of 
> irony within SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES IN  SECEDA with  
> regards to Parliamentary Debate.  Some are exhibiting the same 
> cavalier attitude that some of us NDT'ers used to convey towards 
> CEDA.  
>  
> As the UNCC debate program makes its transition from competing  in 
> CEDA to Parliamentary, we are experiencing the same sense of elitism 
> within the South East CEDA community.  In addition to receiving 
> uncomfortable phone calls and e-mail messages,  I have had many 
> folks in the SECEDA region openly boycott our tournament which is 
> scheduled to be held this weekend.   Ironically, I called several 
> SECEDA schools over the course of this summer to inquire if they 
> would be interested in offering parli so that we could support their 
> tournament.  Some schools understandably could not for various 
> reasons but enthusiastically indicated that perhaps next year they could 
> accommodate. Other schools such as Middle Tennessee canceled their 
> parli division even when it was listed in the AFA calendar.  It is my 
> contention that UNCC honestly attempted to keep the lines of 
> communication open.  I beleive that through disscussion of difference 
> whether it is in gender, race, class, etc. we can find points of synthesis.  
> What ever happened to discussing differences IN DEBATE?  I thought 
> that was what we were supposed to teaching our students.
>  
> I would like to hear what folks in NDT, CEDA, Parliamentary, LD 
> think about my experience here in SECEDA? What are the differences 
> and similarities in our formats in term of evidence, style, argument 
> construction preference, etc.  How can we support the decisions of 
> DOF's who want to afford their studuents divergent  experiences in 
> academic debate?  Opportunities that we were never afforded. I assume 
> that we all want to teach our students some basic underlying principles 
> which are similar but choose to enact those notions in divergent ways. 
> And these choices are reflective in the format(s) we choose to compete 
> in as debate/forensics programs.  Do you see a sense of irony in that 
> our competitive formats are teaching us how to handle difference yet 
> they are hashed out differently in the "real world" settings of 
> administrative concerns by DOF's?  Is there not unity in numbers?  Or 
> do we only like unity on certain terms?  BTW some of my CEDA 
> colleagues have been exceptionally supportive and their willingness to 
> discuss  these differences openly I appreciate.
>  
> Thanks for reading this long post!
>  
> Looking for answers --
>  
> lisa marie coppoletta
> director of forensics
> university of north carolina at charlotte
> 704/547-2852 
> lmcoppol@unccvms.uncc.edu
>
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page