prep time prodding

Jackie B. Massey jmassey
Sat Feb 13 02:26:05 CST 1999


Comments are as biased as a house manager.
I don't think i got to see you at the tournament?
Must have missed you?

Peace,

Massey



On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Michael Miroslav Korcok wrote:

> seems like Jackie got the time wrong: got 25 instead of just
> the 15 he claimed: he always thought he was faster than he
> was, too.  but if Jamey and Will tried to give just 15, it
> was probably to help the Vermont squad on the theory that
> less Massey = better prep.  (not that I subscribe to that
> theory...)
>
> and who wants to read a public whine about prep time for one
> round after busting their butts to put on a more than
> full-service tournament? (was there coffee in the morning?
> yes? well then, shut up.)  yes, i WOULD make a good customer
> service representative.
>
> i've always enjoyed all the prep time a tournament thought
> it could give (and sometimes a bit more).  so, please give
> what you can - we need it.  and sometimes i'll try to take a
> bit more, so feel free to goad, push, and prod with threats
> and pleas.  we'll meet somewhere between being good hosts
> and good guests.
>
> feeling better now,
> michael korcok
>

>From  Sat Feb 13 10:12:03 1999
Message-Id: <SAT.13.FEB.1999.101203.MST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 23574 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:17:47
 -0500
Received: from www0j.netaddress.usa.net (www0j.netaddress.usa.net
 [204.68.24.39]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id
 MAA11098 for <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:17:46 -0500
 (EST)
Received: (qmail 24512 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Feb 1999 17:12:03 -0000
Received: from 209.32.178.236 by www.netaddress.com via web-mailer(3.1) on Sat
 Feb 13 17:12:03 GMT 1999
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <19990213171203.24511.qmail at www0j.netaddress.usa.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:12:03 MST
Reply-To: debatecoach at USA.NET
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Steve Clemmons <debatecoach at USA.NET>
Subject: Re: [Re: World According To parcher]

>So let me get something straight.  You don't think that diversity has to do
>with skin color or gender when those experiences are not a part of the
>activity as a whole?  How do you get diversity if those voices aren't
included
>into the activity?  Diversity is about BOTH what you say and what I say,
but
>don't have one without the other.  Since I have never been white and
affluent,
>I can't speak for that voice.  But being black and lower middle class, I
can
>speak for that experience. That view is not represented well, since debate
is
>a sport of affulence. Do you think that debate as we have it now is
diverse?
>Do you think that there are minority views that need to be presented?
Another
>point lost in your self rightous cloak of "Don't criticize me, since I am
the
>best thing to inclusion since the desegregated school kick" is, "How are
>minority JUDGES supposed to get the experience that you claim make
diversity
>if there is preference that is built on a system that hasn't favored
inclusion
>until recently?"

1. Never claimed debate was diverse.  Once again your assumptions about what
I must think say alot about you and nothing about me.


What I think of you has nothing to do with the questions that I have raised.
Remember the other questions that I posed?  Oh, how could you?  You failed to
answer the essential ones from the first post with a "don't need to answer
them"  Why pick and choose? I see why, answer the easiest ones, avoid the hard
ones. But since you won't go to the first or second posts, this becomes a moot
issue.  Questions of how to increase participation, increase the diversity as
well as others were posed to you, and you let your salty disposition cloud
you.

2. You seem stuck on the harms question.  The community moved on to the
solvency issue long ago. You keep railing on the need for a more diverse
community.  No person has even attempted to argue otherwise that I HAVE EVER
HEARD.  The question is how to achieve that.

Proof that you don't read carefully.  I gave solutions on how to achieve that
as well.  Refer ( for the people who WILL read the earlier posts ) to the
comments I made on urban camps, increased spotlight on institutes to advertise
the many opportunities that they have. ( I know that the big programs give a
lot of money away for students who can't afford it, one solution was to give
some of the money to targeted underrepresented minorities)  Another solution I
gave that you conveniently ignored was that the lack of role models in the
activity needs to be addressed with maybe coaches seminars or institutes.

3.  Apparently you are having some difficulty - this is the third time I
will repeat myself.  I am comfortable with the efforts I have made on behalf
of diversity.  Seems like a simple sentence to me.  It claims nothing about
results or my position relative to other programs.


Why are you so defensive then that you need to repeat it three times?  WE all
know that you feel comfortable?  I say why should WE ALL feel comfortable, if
the problem still remains and that there are solutions out there for US to
try.  As part of your defensive mechanism to criticism, you try to turn
everything to you versus me, when it is US in the same community.  I find it
funny that you turn towards success, when I could care less about how
successful that your program has been.  If you are looking for validation from
the community or from me ( which it is painfully obvious that you are ) then
let me be the first to tell you congrats on the success for competitiveness. I
think that should solve the problem of you not feeling recognized with
successful minorities, but what to do about the ones in the community who
aren't touched by the golden hand of Parcher?  I gave solutions, you didn't
want to read them.

4. Minority judges get experience judging the same way we all do.  Go to
tournaments and judge.  Earn a reputation for fairness and intelligence.
Our strike sheet surely does not discrminate on the basis of race or gender.
For disadvantages to the preference system, see my earlier posts and
community reaction to the Baylor experiment.

First, if we are not in the activity, do not get the same experience as
others, then how will we be recognized?  I go to a tournament, my name is put
on the strike sheet and teams look at it. ( I went over this scenario in an
earlier post ) Nobody knows who I am, so I am struck.  Even if I went to a lot
of tournaments, who do I get into that upper echelon of critics, if I get
struck all the time?  How do the top tier programs ( like Georgetown ) get to
know who I am as a critic, if I never get to judge them?  How do I get to be a
good critic, if I am regulated to lower rounds.  This is the experience for
some critics who didn't go to big programs.  I guy that I went to school with
at San Francisco State went to a few NDT tournaments to judge with me and this
was our experience when we first got into judging.  I worked with a lot of NDT
people, so they knew me, but didn't know him.  What do you think that the
quality of ballots favored?  My problem with your solution is that it flies in
the faces of a lot of the critiques you made of me in that you didn't want
compartmentalization of debaters.  The same goes for judges.  I ( or anybody )
only become favored if we think like the rest of the community does.  The
strike sheet definitely does not discriminate on the basis of gender or race.
Your rep starts way before you pick up the first ballot.  That is NOT to say
that your rep is decided on gender or race, but experience.  That experience
is what minorities not have and can't get enough of.

5. Experiences are individualized, therefore any search for diverse
experience must treat people as individuals.  Your method essentializes
groups with labels such as weak, underpriveleged, historically oppressed,
whatever. This is the fundamental argument you seems to fail to account for.
It is your construction of groups which subjugates them and my treatment of
people as individuals which is empowering.

Well Ghandi, individuals have shared experiences.  Get out of the debate
argument mode and think about oppressed groups for a moment.  If you need me
to say, "HELP INDIVIDUALS", then consider it said.  You can however, look at
groups and say that they are underrepresented, and that is what the posts have
said.  You can also say ( with statistical proof, which might buy into the
"kritik") that debate is an activity of affluence, and a lot of minorities do
not have the cash flow to participate.  That is a reflection of the society
around us.  Look around the D.C. area for a minute.  Better yet, don't do
that, because it will shatter your image of wealth and prosperity that we all
must share in.

>If I was your judge, you would have lost a long time ago.

Somehow that doesn't seem to surprise me and perhaps relates to why I was
unwilling to acceed to your self appointed authority in the first place.

You were the one how set me up to judge you and you lost.  Power brokers never
want to give up power.

>If that was the case, then can you ever justify giving a "0" for rudeness
or
>racist speech?  I sure can.  To all reading this, if you were to call me
out
>my name, there WILL be in round and out of round penalties to pay.
Interpret
>that how you will.  That is the way I judge.  How about the great term most
>are unwilling to talk about, "NIGGER" ( Looks more menacing capitalized )
That
>could be robust argumentative prose.  Included in that could be SPIC, KIKE,
>and all the other Archie Bunker phrases he made famous in the seventies.
>Where is the line drawn?

You are the one that has to draw a line.  My line is easy - it's up to the
debaters.  I judge the arguments in the debate - I don't measure every word
against some kind of PC code to determine how many speaker points get
docked.  If someone in the debate made an argument concerning the offensive
speech of their opponents then I would evaluate it.  They might win the
debate or convince me to dock speaker points.  If no argument was presented,
I would certainly speak to the debaters (counterspeech) after the round if I
thought they had said something offensive.  I would try to educate, but
would I try to punish them through the use of the ballot?  Never have.  Hope
I never will.  If you want to have a debate on the relative merits of
punishing speech, I would be happy to engage you.  Just list all the types
of speech you want to regulate and how - my 1NC will follow shortly.

Why debate something that you already say isn't offensive on its merits?  Why
do they call it speaker points?  By your standards, no speech is worth
punishing.  Is hatred and intolerance a learned or genetic trait?

>Did you really read them?  Or did someone say, "Jeff, someone is calling
>bullshit on you and your rhetoric?"

Call your posts what you want to if it makes you feel better.

No, READ CAREFULLY, the call of bullshit is about your rhetoric and your
selective way of answering questions Jeff. See below for why.

>Is your argument that there is no glass ceiling for women and minorities in
>society and debate?  Anyone can point to some strong people and say that
>because they are doing well, they don't need protection.

1. If you do think women and minorities need protection in debate then your
argument is apriori sexist/racist in that it on face essentializes them as
weak and unable to succeed.

Why not open the floodgate?  Does something fear you about increased
participation?  My argument as you posted above is that SOME can succeed but
others can't/won't.  It seems like any solution that is offered can be on face
a reductio ad absudum, since it attempts to provide relief to underrepresented
groups.  Offer increased scholarships to blacks on the HS level? No, because
it will send the message that they can't do it alone.  Ridiculous.

2. I see no evidence of a glass ceiling in debate.  I do see some societal
barriers which lead to differential PARTICIAPTION rates among whites vs.
black and women vs. men.  Obviously this occurs only in the aggregate as
numerous individuals have successfully challenged such barriers.  That's how
I explain the success of some minorities in the activity.  How do you?
Luck?

Is it numerous compared to the debate community as a whole?  Is it even better
than success rates of minorities in the world outside of debate?  At least you
admit that barriers exist.  What are the barriers that you see minorities
having to overcome?  Maybe once I see what you see as the problem, I can come
to understand the man behind the statements, which I disagree with.  Because
right now, own world views do not co-exist peacefully.

>Should we come to
>the defense of Rosa Parks, or should we let her sit in a cell?  She was
>strong, but without help, change never happens.

Not analogous - she was in prison because of state sponsored discrimination.
Also she wanted equal access, not targetted preference.  It offends me that
you associate a hero of the equality movement with your arguments which
essentialize minorities as weak.
Even before I answer the non-argument, I just wanted to say I highly doubt
that you are offended.  The essential argument is that of underrepresentation.
 Now to the arguments, or lack thereof.  First, answered above.  Some can
succeed, others can't because of barriers that we can help break down.  Think
about the field Negro and the house Negro.  Both were equal in that fact that
they were slaves, but different in that the treatment of the two groups was
different.  Second, do minorities have equal access in debate?  That is all I
want too.  I want equality in the activity.  Do we have it? NO.  Solutions are
in the same place that they were, above this and in other posts.
>Or as Fredrick Douglass said,
>"Without struggle, there is no progress."  My view of all minorities in
debate
>is that more can always be done, the question is who is willing to attempt
>change.  You have answered that question, quite obviously in the NEGATIVE.


The only questions that I answered in the negative are:

Should elim judges be placed on the basis of race and gender criteria?

Never wanted that either.  That is clearly a straw person.  The argument I
made was elimination of preference.

Should we publicly label all rude debaters as sexist?

Never wanted that either.  Clearly, you didn't read it.  I said that I thought
Phil wasn't sexist, just rude and unthinking about the fact it was team debate

Does Jeff owe Steve an explanation of his recruiting efforts?
As you like to say, your record speaks for itself.

The rest you just made up to fit your deeply offensive view of who I am.
Or is it that you looked in the mirror and saw who you were?  I asked
QUESTIONS, you  answered them.

>Who cares how long you have coached, what have you done lately, to borrow
from
>Janet Jackson.  Again, kinda delicate, definitely china glass fragile, but
in
>your position, I guess I would be too.  Why is coaching since 1984
important?
>Is it that I am not female, or is it that I have only coached since (fill
in
>the blank here, since amount of time is illrelevent) that my point(s) are
not
>to be heard.

Let's review.  You questioned how much EXPERIENCE I have had coaching women
in the activity.  The answer happens to be alot more than you have.

I have had women in the quarters of the NDT twice, a brown man in the finals
of the NDT twice and won it once.  Last year I had an east-asian debater
recieve the 4th postion in at-large balloting (recent enough for you?). ( YES)
How
about the Richmond tournament this year - in which a brown man and a woman
representing Georgetown University won. How many minorties have you coached
to the late elimination rounds of the NDT or CEDA nationals? (Counting myself,
none in the NDT elims, since I have only been to two as a competitior and none
as a coach, since I was 3-5 and 2-6.  CEDA 3 times as a competitor and twice
as a coach) How many tournaments did you win this year with two minorities
representing your (One, I think ASU, but if you count parlimentary, which I
also coach then 8 or 9 tournaments) school?  If Richmond isn't recent enough
for you - how about the future -next weekend at districts one of our teams
will be all-female.

Why is winning the criteria for amount of minorities worked with? Let me slap
you on the back and say, "Well done, old chap.  You have had a lot of
success."  Hopefully, victories isn't the only way your judge the change that
you make in the activity, although I guess it is.  Let's see what that gets
you as a door prize, nothing.  Again, the question isn't one of success,
although that is the peg you lay your hat on.  I will definitively CONCEDE
that you have had more success in the activity, but I know for a fact that I
have worked with more minorities in the debate community.  But, it isn't a
game of who has more "W's"  or how has worked with more minorities, it's a
question of is the activity diverse (answer, a resounding NO) and once that is
answered, what can we do about it?

>Maybe we have passed you by old guy.  Maybe all the time in the
>activity has made you myopic.  Now, you see what you want to see, so you
and
>the rest of the "experienced/seasoned coaches"  can meet for brandy or
cognac
>and slap yourselves on the back for all that you have done at the end of
the
>day.

Nothing like a good Cognac.
As well as a myopic view of the activity that needs help.

>Other people know what WE ALL should be doing, and that is to enlighten
>utopian thinkers like yourself, who sit back and say, "Everything is great
and
>we have perfected the debate experience."

It's much easy to answer my statements when you just make them up - isn't
it?

Better me make them up then have you not may any.  Which ones were made up
though?  Easiest still is to not answer arguments and shroud yourself in a
cloak of " Jeff Parcher, Freedom Fighter."  Sounds like a good fiction book.

>Why should you, I did the work you were too lazy, self-righteous or
ignorant
>to do.

Lazy?
Or would you prefer incompetant?

>I didn't get my PC badge yet, but I think that it is in the mail.  Funny
thing
>about your last paragraph is that you charge me with making ad hominem
>attacks, while calling me the PC police would meet the defintion of
ad-hominem
>argument.

Wrong again.  I called you the PC police and provided warrants for why that
label mattered substantively.  Warrants you have apparently embraced. You
questioned the diversity of my program, my commitment to social justice,
called me lazy, self righteous and ignorant all without the benefit of the
most superficial of warrants.


I just took your answers and questioned the validity behind them.  Others, I
asked questions to be answered.  You took informative questions and then took
that deep to heart that anyone could question "Freedom Fighter"

> If you teach by doing, you must be a good teacher.  Check that,
>GREAT teacher. Women as well as other minorities ( Don't forget them like
you
>conveniently do in all the other posts.) can deal with it, but why should
they
>have to?   I wanted to know at what level do you step in.  If I am eloquent
in
>my racist hate speech, should I get a 30?

Since the vast majority of my speaker points are assigned on the basis of
analysis and reasoning, I doubt such could ever occur.  Fortunately, the
world has other remedies for hate speech besides speaker points.  Call me
crazy, but I doubt we are gonna eliminate racism and sexism with speaker
points.  Pardon me while I focus on some real solutions.

What real solutions are you focusing on? A time machine,  or just time itself?
 I guess if you have a continual drop of water against a rock, that in time
that water will erode the rock away. The question is how long?  The speaker
point deduction wouldn't solve it alone, but when they didn't clear on points
or you displayed your lack of enthusiasm for that approach, then maybe lights
might turn on inside the debates head.

Your statement about me forgetting some minorities is patently absurd.  A)
It is utterly unclear what the hell you are talking about, B) Perhaps, I
should indite you for failing to mention gays or Jews or Muslims or
Republicans - all of whom are apparent minorities in modern debate.


>>If this was 1960, would you be race conscious?
>No.
>Why should you be?  We wouldn't be in the activity to worry about.

Hello????  And the reason you wouldn't be in the activity in 1960 is BECAUSE
of race consciousness not the lack of it.

No wrong again.  We wouldn't be in the activity because of lack of opportunity
and overt levels of racism.  When you look around and everyone is like you,
why be concerned.



____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1




More information about the Mailman mailing list