Heart entries

[Stacey K. Sowards]

Here are the Heart entries I have so far.  I know we have a couple of
other entries, like Pepperdine, so if you sent your entry to Harris or
Zive, we probably have it.  Please email me with any
corrections.  Anyone else who plans to come, please send your entry now.
And don't forget your Heart book entries!


Stacey Sowards
University of Kansas

Cornell
Matt Miller and Rob Melton
Jessica Wojtysiak and Michael Cole
Judge:  Kristin Dybvig (7)

Cal State Northridge
Julie Straub and Phaedra Ellis-Lampkins
Judge:  Bill Sheffield (4)

Dartmouth
Michael Andrew and Adam Garen
Judges:  Bill Russell (2) and Brian Prestes (2)

Emory
Dan Fitzmier and Vic Tabak
Anne Marie Todd and Leslie Wade
Katie Matt and Alison Chase
Nessa Horewitch and Shanara Reid
George Kouros and Stephen Bailey
Anjan Sahni and Jon Paul Lupo
Stephen Heidt and Larry Heftman
Raj Ghoshal and Jeff McNabb
Judges:  David Heidt (5), Jamie McKown (5), and Chris Lundberg

Emporia State
Tara Tate and Shannon Holland
Tony Nation and Brad Areheart
Luke Simmons and Marie Baenig
Judges:  Darren Elliot (4) and Rodger Biles (3)

Fort Hays State
John Clune and Andrew Halverson
Judge:  Joey Boyle (4)

Fullerton (Cal State)
Laura Heider and Demetrius Lambrinos
Judge:  Jeanine Congalton

Harvard
Sonja Starr and Carl Engstrom
Nicholas Hanssens and Shafeequa Watkins
Judges:  Scott Hessell (4), Paul Skiermont (3), Dallas Perkins (elim),
Sherry Hall (elim)

Kentucky
Brian Ray and Paul Jensen
Judge: Dave Arnett (4)

Macalester
Jennifer Alme and Kiva Garen
Marfa Wilson and Francis James Hart
Judges:  Will Brewer (3), Jim Haefele (7)

Northwestern
Michael Gottlieb and Ryan Sparacino
Judge:  Nate Smith (4)

Pace
Mike Kloster and Taylor Petrey
Jason Peterson and Danny Bell
Judge:  Tim Mahoney (7)

Puget Sound
Paul Veillon and Scott Bailey
Darrel Wanzer and Foster Reif
Judge:  Glenn Kuper (7)

Wake Forest
Ken Rufo and Emma Filstrup
Andy Geppert and Justin Green
Judges:  Elisia Cohen (5), Ross Smith (2)

West Georgia
Barksdale and Saloom
Judge:  Jon Sharp

William Jewell
Matt McGee and Louie Petit
Jenn Davis and Aubrey Harris
Judges:  Steve Woods (4), Gina Lane (3)

>From  Sun Feb 15 10:25:35 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.102535.EST.>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:25:35 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Hierarchializing Judges
Comments: cc: parli at willamette.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

I've got a pet peeve. Allow me to get it off my chest.

I'm actually very happy with the format of most Western tournaments - several
divisions of parli, ususally a single division of CEDA/NDT, and plenty of IEs.
The tournaments are large, happy events, even if CEDA/NDT only has a single
division. Parli more than makes up the difference for novices and folks
disgruntled all together with policy.

My pet peeve - I've been taking walkon novices to these tournaments in novice
and JV parli. I generally make my preference clear to tournament hosts that I
prefer to judge in parli, where my exposure to other parli styles and
strategies will help me coach my participating students. Everytime I'm asked
if I'd mind judging a policy debate if they're in a pinch. Everytime I say OK,
only to end up judging a schedule of nothing but policy. When I complain, I'm
told that I should look at this as a compliment, since they're only trying to
make sure that the "more difficult" policy debates have the best judges
possible.

Ego-stroking is a weak substitute for fairness and equality. I am deeply
disturbed by the attitude prevalent here in the Rocky Mountain region that
policy rounds deserve consistently better judges, since they're more
difficult. The students in parli are actually trying to take this seriously
and don't deserve permanent consignment to the "weaker" judges. Actually, I
find it independently disturbing that tabroom staff are so insistent on
ranking (hierarchializing) judges that they would come to the conclusion that
some are so bad that they must be kept in junior parli while others are so
good they must be kept in policy. Is this really what tabrooms should be
doing? Given the fact that I'm being assigned over and over to hear the same
policy teams (who interestingly enough debate for the people doing the tabroom
assignments), I also have to question "competence" as the guiding rationale
for my placement.

This may sound like something minor. I don't think it is. By placing me in the
policy schedule, I am separated from my novice students. Since the policy
debates are twice as long, I am unable to coach my novices, or even take them
out for food between rounds.

>From this point on, I will simply have to take the step of refusing to judge
policy at local tournaments, unless, of course, I have policy teams in
attendance. I urge local Western tournament directors to reflect on the unfair
biases against parli that seem to be creeping in to their judge assignments.
I urge people all across the country to avoid repeating these injustices as
they look toward setting up PFD tournaments, next year. The youngest, most
impressionable students also deserve quality judging. Which probably rules me
out of judging both parli and policy...

Just wishing people would think more about their actions,

Bear
PS: Those of you condemning parli as an activity of fools are the biggest
fools I know of in this activity. You can now return to Scooby Doo....