What are the things the CEDA organization stands for?

[Woods, Steve]

        I am going to repost this message, it was posted during the
hullaballoo over myn so it might have got lost in the delete frenzy.  Sorry
to clutter your e-mail if in fact it was just boring.

        Thanks for your patience,
        Steve

> Hey all,
>
> As we near the National Tournament, and the election of officers, I would
> like to see what people think about the things that "CEDA" (regardless of
> the actual name, which I think should be changed) stands for, or are we
> really just generically "team policy debate" and identical to NDT without
> need for a seperate organization?
>
> Some caveats:
>
> 1.) I am sure many will invoke history here, and say "this is why CEDA was
> formed."  As long as that type of discussion bespeaks a relevant point
> about
> what we are now and why that is important I am not sure what those lessons
> would contribute.  A second point about "history" is that mainly I have
> encountered it in our organization as particularly impressionistic and
> ideological.  People have their stories about "why" there was a split that
> seem more indicative of a personal bias than particularly neutral.
>
> 2.) Lets make sure and not to "demonize" the other here.  Lets not talk
> about what is bad in other forms, but rather why the "organization" of
> CEDA
> stands for something not addressed and/or advocated by other
> organizations.
> I personally have debated in both, and like them both.
>
> Briefly I can think of the following, please note that his is in NO way an
> atempt to be exhaustive, or even accurate in the sense that these are the
> things that I feel are about CEDA.  It does not mean that other
> organizations are not embracing of the ideals or are not quality groups.
>
> 1. An open nationals.  You aren't picked, you don't qualify, you just show
> up.  Debate 8 and make the bracket of 64.
>
> 2. Elim rounds for as large as bracket as is possible, not just partial
> bracets.  Yes, some .500 teams get to play on elim day.  But having 32 or
> 16
> teams play seems to create more debate.  IF you have at least 59 teams,
> why
> not have a full double octa?  or if you have 29, why not 16?
>
> Others I have discussed the matter with have included:
>
>  the idea of CEDA's
> proactive stance on discrimination.  Requiring a non-discrimination
> statement for the national tournament, and a standing officer to address
> the
> issue if needed.  There is also some history of forums and other official
> adminstrative attempts to raise the issue and address it.
>
Another point made is the support of coaches and program development.  That
the CEDA organization actively develops materials useful to coaches seeking
to professioanlize their service to the community and legitmize their work
to their administrations, and that there are materials available to develop
and support new/younger programs.

> What are other peoples thoughts?  I am interested in hearing the voices of
> students on this matter.  I think our presidential candidates might also
> chime in so that we may have a glance of their "vision" of the activity,
> or
> is this just another organization?
>
> Also, as the business meeting at Nationals looms near, those thinking of
> any
> amendments or motions should be getting them forwarded to the appropriate
> persons and pbulicizing and discussing them in this forum.
>
> Looking forward to y'alls thoughts,
> Steve
>